(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "The Examiner and Journal of Political Economy - Volume 2"

Go xrfe 




IEcotTPi^i 







THE 



EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY; 



DEVOTED TO THE 



AJDVAIKBRIUmifV 



OF THE 



CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 



EDITED BY CONDY BAQUET, 
Member of the American Philosophical Society, 

▲MISTED BT 
A MEMBER OF TUB STATE RIGHTS ASSOCIATION OF PENNSYLVANIA. 



FROM AUGUST, 1834, TO JULY, 1835. 



TOJL. II. 



PEIL&QELPHIA: 



1835 






HARVARD COLUGE LIBftAHr 



'tfodywdLA^ 



crvvvtoC 1 



\ 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OP THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 



Tne Powen not Delegated to the United Slates, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to tbe 8utes, are reserved to the 

State* respectively, or to the People. . . . Amendments to the Constitution, Art. X. 

FVssdsm sf Iniuttrj, as racred as frftedom of speech or of the press. . Jefferson. 



"Vol. II] 



Wednesday, August 6, 1834. 



[No. 1. 



DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE. 
In Coironsss, Jolt 4, 1776. 
%he unanimous declaration of the Thirteen United 
States of America* 

When in the course of human events, it becomes 
necessary for one people to dissolve the political 
bands which have connected them with another, and 
to assume among the powers of the earth, the sepa- 
rate and equal station to which the laws of nature 
and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect 
to the opinions of mankind requires that they should 
declare the causes which impel them to the separa- 
tion. 

We Hold these truths to be self-evident — that all 
men are created equal; that they are endowed by 
their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that 
among these are life, liberty t and the pursuit of hap- 
piness. 3'hat to secure these rights, governments 
are institute* amonpmen, deriving their just powers 
from the consent of the governed: that whenever 
any form of government becomes destructive of 
these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or 
to abolish it, and to institute a new government, lay- 
ing its foundation on such principles, and organizing 
its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most 
likely to effect their safety and happiness. Pru- 
dence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long 
established should not be changed for light and tran- 
sient causes; and, accordingly, all experience hath 
shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, 
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves 
by abolishing the forms to which they are accus- 
tomed. But when a long train of abuses and usur- 
pations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces 
a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, 
it is their right, it is their duty to throw oft such 
government, and to provide new guards for their fu- 
ture security. Such has been the patient sufferance 
of these colonies; and such is now the necessity 
which constrains them to alter their former systems 
of government The history of the present Kmg of 
Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and 
usurpations, all having in direct object the establish- 
ment of an absolute tyranny over these States. To 
prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. 

He has refused bis assent to laws the most whole- 
some and necessary for the public good. 

He bas forbidden his governors to pass laws of im- 
mediate and pressing importance, unless suspended 
in their operation, till his assent should be obtained; 
and when so suspended, be has utterly neglect eel 
to attend to them. He has refused to pass other , 



laws for the accommodation of large districts of peo- 
ple, unless those people would relinquish the right 
of representation in the legislature — a right inesti- 
mable to them, and formidable to tyrants only. 

He has called together legislative bodies at places 
unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the reposi- 
tory of their public records, for the sole purpose of 
faftfe-uing them into compliance with his measures. 

He has dissolved representative houses repeated- 
ly, for opposing, with manly firmness, his invasions 
on the rights of the people. 

He has refused, for a long time after such disso- 
lutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the 
legislative powers, mcapabable of annihilation, have 
returned to the people at targe, for their exercise, 
the state remaining in the imfan time exposed to all 
the dangers of invasion from without, and convul- 
sions within. 

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of 
these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws 
for naturalization of foreigners, refusing to pass 
others to encourage their migration hither, and 
raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands. ' 

He has obstructed the administration of justice, 
by refusing his assent to laws for establishing juxhV 
ciary powers. 

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, 
for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and 
payment of their salaries. 

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent 
hither swarms of officers, to harass our people, and 
eat out their substance. 

He has kept among us, in times of peace, stand- 
ing armies, without the consent of our legislatures. 

He has affected to render the military independ- 
ent of and superior to, the civil power. 

He has combined with others to subject us to a 
jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unac* 
knowledged by our laws; giving his assent to theif 
acts of pretended legislation: 

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among 
us: 

For protecting them by a mock trial* from punish* 
meet for any murders which they should commit on 
the inhabitants of these states: 

For catting off our trade with all parts of the 
world t 

For imposing taxes on us without onr consent: 

For depriving us, in many oases, of the benefits of 
trial by jury: 

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried far 
pretended offences t 

For abolishing the free system of English laws iv 



THE EXAMINER, 



* neighbouring province, establishing therein an ar- 
bitrary government, and enlarging- its boundaries, so 
as to render it at once an example and fit instru- 
ment for introducing the same absolute rule into 
these colonies. 

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most 
valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms 
of our government. 

For suspending our own legislatures, and declar- 
ing: themselves invested with power to legislate for 
us in all cases whatsoever. 

He has abdicated government here, by declaring 
us out of his protection, and waging war against us: 

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, 
burnt our towns, and destroyed the hves of our peo- 
ple. 

H^ is at this time transporting large armies of fo- 
reign mercenaries to complete the works of death, 
desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circum- 
stances of cruelty and perfidy, scarcely paralleled in 
the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the 
bead of a civilized nation. 

He has constrained our fellow citizens, taken cap- 
tive on the high seas, to bear arms against their .coun- 
try, to become the executioners of their friends and 
brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands. 

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst U9 » 
and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of 
our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose 
known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruc- 
tion of all ages, sexes, and conditions. 

In ejrery stage of these oppressions we have peti- 
tioned for redress in the most humble terms; our 
repeated petitions have been answered only by re- 
peated injury. A prince, whose character is thus 
marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is 
unfit to be the ruler of a free people. 

Nor have we been wanting in attentions to our 
British brethren, We have warned them, from time 
to time, of attempts by their legislature to extend 
an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have 
reminded them of the circumstances of our emigra- 
tion and settlement here. We have appealed to 
their native justice and magnanimity, and we have 
conjured them, by the ties of our common kindred, 
"to disavow these usurpations, which would inevita- 
bly interrupt our connexions and correspondence. 
They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and 
of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in 
the necessity which denounces our separation, and 
hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind— enemies 
in war, in peace friends. 

We, therefore, the representatives of the United 
States of America, in general Congress assembled, 
appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world, for 
the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and 
by the authority of the good people of these colo- 
nies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united 
colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and inde- 
pendent states: that they are absolved from all alle- 
giance to the British crown, and that all political 
connexion between them and the state of Great Bri- 
tain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, 
as free and independent states, they have full power 
to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, esta- 
blish commerce, and to do all other acts and things 
which independent states may of right do. And for 
the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance 
on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually 
pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our 
sacred honour. 

JOHN HANCOCK. 



HEW HAMPSHIRE. 

Jonah Bartktt, 
William Whipple, 
Matthew Thornton. 

MASSACHUSETTS BAT. 

Samuel Adams, 
John Adams, 
Robert Treat Paine, 
Elbridge Gerry. 

RHODE ISLAND, &C« 

Stephen Hopkins, 
William EUery. 

CONNECTICUT. 

Roger Sherman, 
Samuel Huntington 
William Williums, 
Oliver ffolcolt. 

MEW TORE* 

William Floyd, 
Philip Livingston, 
Francis Lewis, 
Lewis Morris* 

HEW JERSEY. 

Richard Stockton, 
John Witherspoon,' 
Francis Hopkinsun, 
John Hart, 
Abraham Clark. 

PENNSYLVANIA. 

Robert Morris, 
Benjamin Rush, % 
Benjamin Franklin, 
John Morion, 
George Clymer, 
James Smith, 



Charge Taylor, 
James Wilson, 
George Ross. 

DELAWARE. 

Casar Rodney, 
George Read, 
Thomas M'Kcan, 

MART LAN*. 

Samuel Chaee, 
William Paca, 
Thomas Stone, 
Charles CarroU, of Carrol' 
ton. 

VIRGINIA. 

George Wythe, 
Richard Henry Lee, 
Thomas Jefferson, 
Benjamin Harrison, 
Thomas Nelson, jr. 
Francis Light foot Lec^ 
Carter Braxton* 

NORTH CAROLINA. 

William Hooper, 
Joseph Hemes, 
John Penn. 

SOUTH CAROLINA. ' 

Edward Rutledge, 
Thomas Hey ward, jr. 
Thomas' Lynch, jr. 
Arthur Middle! on. 

GEORGIA. 

Burton Gwinnett, 
Lyman Hall, 
George Walton. 



ORIGINAL ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION. 

TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, 

We, the undersigned, Delegates of the States affixed 

to our names, send greeting? 
' Whereas, the delegates of the United > States of 
America, in Congress assembled, did/on the fif- 
teenth day of November, in the year of our Lord 
one thousand seven hundred and seventy-seven, and 
in the second year of the independence of America, 
agree to certain articles of confederation and perpe- 
tual union between the States of !New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence 
Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, in the words 
following, viz: 

Articles of confederation and perpetual union be- 
tween the States of New Hampshire, Massachu- 
setts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Planta- 
tions, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Penn- 
sylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North 
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. 
Art. I. The style of this confederacy shall be 
«• The United States of America." 

Art. It. Each State retains its sovereignty, free- 
dom, and independence, and every power, jurisdic- 
tion and right, which is not by this confederation 
expressly delegated to the United States in Con- 
gress assembled. 

Art. IH. The said States hereby severally enter 
into a firm league of friendship with each other, for 
their common defence, the security of their liber- 
ties, and their mutual and general welfare; binding 
themselves to assist each other, against all force of- 
fered to, or attacks made upon them, or any of them, 
on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any 
, other pretence whatever. 

Art. IV. 4 1. The better to secure and perpetti 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



ate mutual friendship and intercourse among the I poses for which the same is to be entered into, and 
people of the different States in this Union, the free how long it shall continue. 



inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vaga- 
bonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be 
entitled to afl privileges and immunities of free ci- 
tizens in the several States; and the people of each 
State shall have free ingress and egress to and from 
any otheY State, and shall enjoy therein all the pri- 
vileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same 
duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabit- 
ants thereof respectively; provided that such restric- 
tions shall not extend so tar as to prevent the re- 
moral of property imported into any State, to any 
other State of which the owner is an inhabitant; 
provided also, that no imposition, duties, or restric- 
tion, shall be laid by any State on the property of 
the United States, or either of them. 

§ 2. If any person guilty of, or charged with, 
treason, felony, or other high Misdemeanour, in any 
State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of 
the United States, he shall, upon tt^e demand of the 
Governor oa Executive power of the Stale from 
which he Bed, be delivered up and removed to the 
State having jurisdiction of his offence. 

§ 3. Full faith and credit shall be given in each 
of these States, to the records, acts, and judicial 
proceedings of the courts and magistrates of every 
other State. 

Art. V. § 1. For the more convenient manage- 
ment of the general interests of the United States, 
delegates shall be annually appointed in such man- 
ner as the Legislature of each State shall direct, to 
meet in Congress on the first Monday in November 
in every year, with a power reserved to each State 
to recal its delegates, or any of thorn, at any time 
within the year, and to send others in thtir stead, 
for the remainder of the year. 

$ 2. No State shall be represented in- Congress 
by less than two, nor more than seven members; and 
no person shall be capable of being a delegate for 
more than three years, m any term of six years; nor 
shall any person, being a delegate, be capable of 
holding any office under the United States, for which 
he, or any other for his benefit, receives any salary, 
fees, or emolument of any kind. 

§ 3. Each State shall maintain its own delegates 
in a meeting of the States, and while they act as 
members of the committee of the States. 

§ 4. In determining questions in the United States 
in Congress assembled, each State shall have one 
vote. 

§ 5. Freedom of speech and debate in Congress 
shall not be impeached or questioned in any court 
or place out of Congress, and the members of Con- 
gress shall be protected in their persons from arrests 
and imprisonments during the time of their going to 
and from, and attendance on, Congress, except for 
treason, felony, or breach of the peace. 

Art VI. $ 1. No State, without the consent of 
the United States in Congress assembled, shall send 
any embassy to, or receive any embassy from, or 
enter into any conference, agreement, alliance, or 
treaty, with any king, prince, or state; nor shall any 
person holding any office of profit or trust under the 
United States, or any of them, accept of any pre- 
sent; emolument, office, or title, of any kind what- 
ever from any king, prince, or foreign state; nor 
shall the United States in Congress assembled, or. 
any of them, grant any title of nobility. 

$ 2. No two or more States shall enter into any 
treaty, confederation, or alliance whatever, between 
them, without the consent of the Unite'd States in 
Congress assembled, specifying accurately the pur- 



§ 3. No State shall lay any imposts or duties which 
may interfere with any stipulations in treaties en- 
tered into by the United States in Congress assem- 
bled, with any king, prince, or state, in pursuance 
of any treaties already proposed by Congress to the 
courts of France and Spain. 

• § 4. No vessels of war shall be kept up in time 
of peace by any State, except such number only as 
shall be deemed necessary by the United States in 
Congress assembled, for the defence of such State, 
or its trade: nor shall any body of forces be kept 
up by any State, in time of peace, except such num- 
ber only as, in the judgment of the United States in 
Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to 
garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such 
State; but every State shall always keep up a well 
regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed 
and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have 
ready for use, in public stores, a due number of 
field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, 
ammunition and camp equipage. 

§ 5. No State shall engage in any war without the 
consent of the United States in Congress assembled, 
unless such State be actually invaded by enemies, 
or shall have received certain advice of a resolution 
being formed by some nation of Indians to invade 
such State, and the danger is so imminent as not to 
admit of delay till the United States in Congress as- 
sembled can be- consulted: nor shall any State grant 
commissions to any ships or vessels of war, nor let- 
ters of marque or reprisal, except it be after a de- 
claration of war by the United States in Congress 
assembled, and then only against the kingdom or 
state and the subjects thereof, against which war 
has been so declared, and under such regulations as 
shall be established by the United States in Congress 
assembled; unless such State be infested by pirates, 
in which case vessels of war may be fitted out for 
that occasion, and kept so long as the danger shall 
continue, or until the United States in Congress as- 
sembled shall determine otherwise. 

Art. VII. When land forces are raised by any 
State for the common defence, all officers of or un- 
der the rank of colonel, shall be appointed by the 
Legislature of each State respectively, by. whom 
such forces shall be raised, or in such manner aa 
such State shall direct; and all vacancies shall be 
filled up by the State which first made the appoint- 
ment. 

Art VIII. § 1. All charges of war, and all other 
expenses that shall be incurred for the common de- 
fence or general welfare, and allowed by the United 
States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed out 
of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by 
the several States, in proportion to the value of all 
land within each State, granted to or surveyed for 
any person, as such land and the buildings and im- 
provements thereon shall be estimated, according 
to such moue as the United States in Congress as- 
sembled shall from time to time direct and appoint. 
The taxes for paying that proportion shall be laid 
and levied by the authority and direction of the Le- 
gislatures of the several States, within the time 
agreed upon by the United States in Congress as- 
sembled. 

Art. IX. § 1. The United States in Congress as- 
sembled shall have the sole and exclusive right and 
power of determining on peace and war, except in 
the cases mentioned m the sixth article— of sending 
and receiving ambassadors- - -entering- into treaties 
and alliances, provided that no treaty of commerce 
shall be made, whereby the legislative power of the 



THE EXAMINER, 



respective States shall be restrained from imposing 
such imposts and duties on foreigners, as their own 
people are subjected tp, or from prohibiting the ex- 
portation or importation of any species of goods or 
commodities whatsoever— of establishing rules for 
deciding-, in all cases, what captures on land or wa- 
ter shall be legal, and in what manner prizes taken 
by land or naval forces in the service of the United 
States shall be divided or appropriated — of granting 
letters of marque and reprisal in times of peace — 
appointing courts for the trial of piracies and felo- 
nies committed on the high seas — and establishing 
courts for receiving and detetirnining finally, appeals 
in all cases of captures, provided that no member 
of Congress shall be appointed a judge of any of the 
said courts. 

§ 2. The United States in Congress assembled 
shall also be the last resort on appeal in all disputes 
and differences now subsisting, or that hereafter 
may arise between two or more States, concerning 
boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatever; 
which authority shall always be exercised in the man* 
ner following: Whenever the legislative or execu- 
tive authority, or lawful agent ot any State th con- 
troversy with another, shall present a petition to Con- 
gress, stating the matter in question, and praying 
for a hearing, notice thereof shall be given by order 
of Congress to the legislative or executive authority 
of the other State in controversy, and a day assigned 
for the appearance of the parties by their lawful 
agents, who shall then be directed to appoint, by 
Joint consent, commissioners or judges to consti- 
tute a court for hearing and determining the 
matter in question : but if they cannot agree, Con- 
gress shall name three persons out of each of the 
United States, and from the list of such persons, 
each party shall alternately strike out one, the peti- 
tioners beginning, until the number shall be reduced 
to thirteen; and from that number not less than seven, 
nor more than nine names, as Congress shall direct, 
shall in the presence of Congress be drawn out by 
lot, and the persons whose names shall be so drawn, 
or any five of them, shall be commissioners or judg- 
es, to hear and finally determine the controversy, so. 
always as a major part of the judges who shall hear 
the cause shall agree m the determination: and if ei- 
ther party shall neglect to attend at the day appoint- 
ed, without showing reasons which Congress shall 
judge sufficient, or being present shall refuse to 
strike, the Congress shall proceed to nominate three 
persons out of each State, and the Secretary of Con- 
gress shall 6trike in behalf of such party absent or 
refusing; and the judgment and sentence of the court 
to be appointed, in the manner before prescribed, 
shall be final and conclusive; and if any of the par- 
ties shall refuse to submit to the authority of such 
court, or to appear or defend their claim or cause, 
the court shall nevertheless proceed to pronounce 
sentence, or judgment, which shall in like manner 
be final and decisive; the judgment or sentence and 
other proceedings being in either case transmitted 
to Congress, and lodged among the acts of Congress, 
for the security of the parties concerned: provided 
that every commissioner, before he sits in judgment, 
shall take an oath, to be administered by one of the 
judges of the Supreme or Superior Court of the State 
where the cause shall be tried, 9t weU and trufy to hear 
and determine the matter in question, according to the 
best of his judgment, withouVfavour, affection, or hope 
ojreward:" provided also that no State shall be depriv- 
ed of territory for the benefit of the United States. 

§ 3. AH controversies concerning the private 
right of soil, claimed under different grants of two or 



more States, whose jurisdictions, as they may respect 
such lands, and the States which passed such grants 
are adjusted, the said grants or either of them being 
at the same time claimed to have originated antece- 
I dent to such settlement of juriadiciion,ahttll, on the 
petition of either party to the Congress of the United 
States, be finally determined as near as may be in 
the same manner as is before prescribed for deciding 
disputes respecting territorial jurisdiction between 
different States. 

$ 4. The United States in Congress assembled 
shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power 
of regulating the alloy and value of coin struck by 
their own authority, or by that of the respective 
States — fixing the standard of weights and measures 
throughout the United States — regulating the trade 
and managing all afTairs with the Indians, not mem- 
bers of any of the States, provided that the legisla- 
tive right of any State within its own limits be not 
infringed or violated—establishing and regulating 
post-offices from one ' State to another, throughout 
all the United States, and exacting such postage on 
the paper* passing through the same aU may be re- 
quisite to defray the expenses of the said office — ap- 
pointing all officers of the land forces in the service 
of the United States, excepting regimental officers; 
appointing all the officers of the naval forces, and 
commissioning all officers whatever in the service of 
the United States — making rules for the Govern- 
ment and regulation of the said land and naval forces, 
and directing 1 their operations, 

$5. The United States in Congress assembled shall 
have authority to appoint a com mil tee, to sit in the re- 
cess of Congress, to be denominated "a committee of 
States," and to consist of one delegate from each 
State: and to appoint such other committees and ci- 
vil officers as may be necessary for managing the ge- 
neral affairs of the United States under their direc- 
tion — to appoint one of their number to preside, 
provided that no person be allowed to serve in the 
office of President more than one year in any term 
of three years; to ascertain the necessary sums of 
money to be raised for the service of the United 
States, and to appropriate and apply the same for 
defraying the public expenses — to borrow money, 
or emit bills on the credit of the United States, 
transmitting every half year to the respective States 
an account of the sums of money so borrowed or 
emitted! — to build and equip a navy— to agree upon 
the number of land forces, and to make requisitions 
from each State for its quota, in proportion to the 
number of white inhabitants in such State; which 
requisitions shall be binding, and thereupon fhe 
legislature of each state shall appoint the regimen- 
tal officers, raise the men, and clothe, atm.and equip 
them in a soldier-like manner, at the expense of the 
United States* and the officers and men so clothed, 
armed and equipped, shall march to the place ap- 
pointed! and within the time agreed on hv the 
United States in Congress assembled: but if the 
United States in Congress assembled shall, on con- 
sideration of circumstances, judge proper that any 
state should not raise men, or should raise a smaller 
number than its quota, and that any other state . 
should raise a greater ntimberofmen than the. quota 
thereof, such extra number shall be raised, officered, 
clothed, armed, and equipped in the same manner 
as the quota of such state, unless the legislature ot 
such state shall judge that such extra number can- 
not be safely spared out of the same, in which- case 
they shall raise, officer, clothe, arm and equip, as 
many of such extra number as they judge can be 
safety spared, and the officers and men so clothed, 



AMD JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



Mined and equipped, shall march to tht place ap- 
pointed, and within the time agreed on by the 
United States in Congress assembled. 

§.6 The United States in Congress assembled shall 
never engage in a war, nor grant letters of marque 
and reprisal in time of peace, nor enter into any 
treaties, or alliances, nor coin money, nor regu- 
late the value thereof, nor ascertain the sums and 
expenses necessary for the defence and welfare of 
the United States, or any of them, nor emit bills, 
nor borrow money on the credit of the United States, 
nor appropriate money, nor agree upon the num- 
ber of vessels of war to be built or purchased, or the 
number of land or sea forces to be raised, nor ap- 
point a commander in chief of the army or navy, 
unless nine states assent to the same: nor shall a 
question on any other point, except for adjourning 
from day to day, be determined, unless by the votes 
of a majority of the United States in Congress as- 
sembled. 

$. 7 The Congress of the United States shall have 
power to adjourn to anv time within the year, and 
to any place within the United States, so that no 
period of adjournment be for a longer duration than 
the space of six months; and shall publish the 
journal of their proceedings monthly, except such 
parts thereof relating to treaties, alliances, or mili- 
tary operations, as in their judgment require secrecy \ 
end the yeas and nays of the delegates' of each State 
on any qnestion shall be entered on the journal, 
when it is desired by any delegate; and the delegates 
of a State, or any of them, at his or their request, 
•ball be furnished with a transcript of the said jour- 
nal, except such parts as are above excepted, to 
lay before the legislatures of the several States. 

Art. X. § 1. The committee of the States, or any 
nine of them, shall be authorized to execute, in the 
recess of Congress, such of the powers of Congress 
as the United States, in Congress assembled, by the 
consent of nine States, shall from time to time think 
expedient to vest them with; provided that no 
power be delegated to the said committee, for the 
exercise of which, by the articles of confederation, 
the voice of nine States in the Congress of the United 
States assembled k requisite. 

Art. XL Canada acceding to this confederation 
and joining in the measures of the United States shall 
be admitted into, and entitled to all the advantages 
of this Union: but no other colony shall be admitted 
into the same, unless such admission be agreed to, 
by ntae States. 

Art XII. All bills of credit emitted, moneys bor- 
rowed, and debts contracted by, or under the au- 
thority of Congress, before the assembling of the 
United States in pursuance of the present confedera- 
tion, shall be deemed and considered as a charge 
against the United States, for payment and satisfac- 
tion whereof the said United States and the public 
amtth are hereby solemnly pledged. 

Art. XIII. Every state shall abide by the deter- 
mination of the United States in Congress assembled 
in all questions which by this Confederation are sub- 
mitted to them. And the Articles of this Confede- 
ration shall be inviolably observed by every State, 
and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any el- 
tension at any time hereafter be made in any of them, 
unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of 
the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by 
the Legislature of every State. 

And whereas it hath pleased the great Governor 
of the world to incline the hearts of the Legislatures 
We respectively represent in Congress, to approve 
of, and to authorize us to ratnV *&* **"* articles of 
confederation and perpetual union: Kvow xm,that 
we, the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the 



power and authority to us given for that purpose, 
do, by these presents, in the name and in behalf of 
our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify 
and confirm each and every of the said Articles of 
Confederation and Perpetual Union, ana all and sin- 
gular the matters and things therein contained. And 
we do further solemnly plight and engage the faith 
of our respective constituents, that they shall abide 
by the determinations of the United States in Con- 
gress assembled, in all questions which by the said 
Confederation are submitted to them; and that the 
articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the 
States we respectively represent, and that the Uni- 
on shall be perpetual. In witness whereof, we have 
hereunto set our hands in Congress. 

Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, 
the 9th day of July, in the year of our Lord 1778; 
and in the third year of the Independence of Ame- 
rica* 
On the part and behalf of! Daniel Roberdeau, 



the State of Neto Hamp- 
shire. 

Josiah Bartlett. 
J. Wentworth, jr. Aug. 8, 
1778. 



Jona. Bayard Smith, 
William Clingan, 
Jos. Reed,22nd Juiy,1778. 
On the part and behalf of 
the State of Delaware. 



the State of Massachusetts 

Bay. 

John Hancock, 

Samuel Adams, 

Elbridge Gerry, 

Francis Dana, 

James Lovell, 

Samuel Holten. 

On the part and behalf of 



On the part and behalf of Thos. M'Kean, Feb. 13, 



1779, 
John Dickinson, 5th May, 

1779, 
Nicholas Van Dyke. 
On the part and behalf of 

the State of Maryland. 
John Hanson, March 1, 

1781, 
Daniel Carroll, do. 



the State of Rhode Island On the part and behalf of 



and Providence Planta- 
tions. 

William Ellery, 

Henry Marchant, 

John Collins. 

On the part and behalf of 
the State of Connecticut. 

Roger Sherman, 

Samuel Huntington, 

Oliver Wolcott, 

Titus Hosmcr, 

Andrew Adams. 

On the part and behalf of 
the State of New York. 

James Duane, 

Francis Lewis, 

William Duer, 

Gouv. Morris 



On the part and behalf of Jno. Matthews, 



the State of New Jersey. 
J. Withorspoon, Nov. 26, 

1778. 
Nath. Scuddet, do. 



the State of Virginia, 
Richard Henry Lee, 
John Banister, 
Thomas Adams, 
John Harvie, 
Francis Lightfoot Lee. 
On the part and behalf of 

the State of North Ca- 
rolina. 
John Penn, July 218^ 

1778. 
Corns. Harnett, 
Jno Williams. 
On the part and behalf of 

the State of South Ca- 
rolina. 
Henry Laurens, 
William Henry Drayton, 



Richard Hutson, 
Thomas Heyward jun. 
On the part and behalf of 
the State of Georgia. 



On the part and behalf ofyno. Walton, 24th July, 



the State of Pennsyl- 
vania 
Robt Morris, 



1778. 
Edwd. Telfair, 
Edwd. Langworthy. 



CONSTITUTION Of THE UNITED STATES. 

Agreed upon in Congress, September 17, 1787. 

We, the people of the United States, in order to 
form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure 
domestic tranquillity, provide for the common de- 
fence, promote the general welfare, and secure the 
blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, 
do ordain and establish this Constitution for the 
United States of America. 

An-r. I. Sic. i. All legulative powers herein 



6 



THE EXAMINER,- 



granted, shall be vested in a Congress of the United 
States, which shall consist of a Senate and "House of 
Representatives. 

Sxc ii. 1. The House of Representatives shall 
be composed of members chosen every second year 
by the people of the several States; and the electors 
in each Stale shall have the qualifications requisite 
for electors of the most numerous branch of the 
State Legislature. 

2. No person shall be a Representative who shall 
not have attained the age of twenty. five years, and 
been seven years a citizen of the United States, and 
who shall not, when elected, Be an inhabitant of 
that State in which he shall be chosen. 

3. KepVesentatives and direct taxes shall be ap- 
portioned among the several States which may be 
included with'm this Union, according to their re- 
spective numbers, which shall be determined by 
adding to the whole* number of free persons includ- 
ing those bound to service for a term of years, and 
excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other 
persons. The actual enumeration shall be made 
within three years after the first meeting of the Con- 
gress of the United States, and within every subse- 
quent term of ten years, in such manner as they 
shall by law direct. The number of Representa- 
tives shall not exceed one for every thirty- thousand, 
but each State shall have at least one Representa- 
tive; and until such enumeration shall be made, the 
State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to choose 
.three; Massachusetts eight; Rhode Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations one; Connecticut five; New York 
six; New Jersey four; Pennsylvania eight; Delaware 
one; Maryland six; Virginia ten; North Carolina 
five; South Carolina five; and Georgia three 

4. When vacancies happen in the Representation 
from any State, the executive authority thereof shall 
issue writs of election to fill such vacancies. 

5. The House of Representatives shall choose 
their speaker and other officers, and shall have the 
sole power of impeachment. 

Sic. in. 1. The Senate of the United States shall 
be composed of two Senators from each State, cho- 
sen by the Legislature thereof, for six years; and 
each Senator shall have one vote. 

2. Immediately after they shall be assembled in 
consequence of the first election, they shall be di- 
vided, as equally as may be, into three classes. The 
seats of the Senators of the first class shall be va- 
cated at the expiration of the second year, of the 
second class at the expiration of the fourth year, and 
of the third class at the expiration of the sixth year, 
so that one-third may be chosen every second year; 
and if vacancies happen by resignation or otherwise 
during the recess of the Legislature of any State, the 
Executive thereof may make temporary appoint- 
ments until the next meeting of the Legislature, 
which b 1 all then fill such vacancies. 

3. No person shall be a Senator who shall not 
have attained to the age of thirty years, and been 
nine years a citizen of the United States, and who 
shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that 
State for which be shall be chosen. 

4. Tlte Vice President of the United States shall 
be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, 
unless they be equally divided. 

5. The Senate shall choose their other officers, 
and also a President pro tempore, in the absence of 
the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the 
office of President of the United States. 

6. The Senate shall have the sole power to try 
all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, 
they s^all be on oath or affirmation. When the 
President of the United States is tried, the Chief 



Justice sjiall preside; and**no person shall be con 
victed without the concurrence of two-thirds of the 
members present 

7. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not 
extend further than to removal from office, and dis- 
qualification to hold and enjoy any office of honour, 
trust or profit, under the United States; but the par- 
ty convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject 
to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, ac- 
cording to law. 

Sec iv. 1. The times, places, and manner of 
holding elections for Senators and Representatives, 
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature 
thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, 
make or alter such regulations, except as to the 
places of choosing Senators. 

2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in 
every year, and such meeting shall t>e on the first 
Monday in December, unless they shall by law ap- 
point a different day. 

Sec t. 1. Each House shall be the judge of the 
elections, returns, and qualifications, of its own mem- 
bers; and a majority of each shall constitute a quo- 
rum to do business^; but a smaller number may ad- 
journ from day to day, and may be authorized to 
compel the attendance of absent members, in such 
manner and under such penalties a* each House may 
provide. 

2. Each House may determine the rules of its 
proceedings, punish its members for disorderly .be- 
haviour, and with the concurrence of two-thirds* 
expel a member. 

3. Each 'House shall keep a journal ot its pro*. 
ceedings, and from time to time publish the same, 
excepting such parts as may in their judgment re- 
quire secrecy; and the yeas and nays of the mem- 
bers of either House, on any question, shall, at the 
desire of one-fifth of those present, be entered on 
the journal. 

4. Neither House, during the session of Congress, 
shall, without the consent of the other, adjourn for 
more than three days, nor to any other place than 
that in which the two Houses shall.be sitting. 

Ssc. vi. 1. The Senators and Representatives 
shall receive a compensation for their services, to be 
ascertained by law, and paid out of the Treasury of 
the United States. They shall, in all cases, except 
treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privi- 
leged from arrest during their attendance at the ses- 
sion of their respective Houses, and in going to or 
returning from the same; and for any speech or de- 
bate in either House, they shall not be questioned 
in any other place. 

2. No Senator or Representative shall, during the 
time for which he was elected, be appointed to any 
civil office under the authority of the United States, 
which shall have been created, or the emoluments 
whereof shall have been increased during such time; 
and no person holding any office under the United 
States, shall be a member of either House during 
his continuance in office. 

Sec vii. 1. All bills for raising revenue shall 
originate in the House of Representatives; but the 
Senate may propose or concur with amendments as 
on other bills. , 

2. Every bill which shall have passed the House 
of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it 
become a law, be presented to the President of the 
United States; if he approve he shall sipn it; but if 
not, he shall return it, with his objections, to that 
House in which it shall have originated, who shall 
enter the objections at large on their journal, and 
proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconside- 
ration, two-thirds of that House shall agree to pass 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



the bill, it' shall be sent, together with the objec- 
tions* to the other House, by which it shall likewise 
be reconsidered, and if approved by two-thirds of 
that House, it shall become a law. But in all such 
cases, the votes of both Houses shall be determined 
by 'yeas and nays, and the names of the persons vet- 
nig for and against the bill, shall b* entered on the 
journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall 
not be returned by the President within ten days 
(Sundays excepted) after it shall have been present- 
ed to him, the same shall be a law in like manner 
as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their 
adjournment prevent its return, in which case it 
shall not be a law. '* 

3. Every order, resolution or vote, to which the 
concurrence of the Senate and House of Represen- 
tatives may be necessary, (except on a question of 
adjournment) shall be presented to the President 
of the United States; and before the same shall take 
effect, shall be approved by him, or being disap- 
proved by him, shall be repassed by two* thirds of 
the Senate and House of Representatives, according 
to the rules and limitations prescribed in the case 
of a bill. 

Sue. viii. 1. The Congress shall have power — 

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and ex- 
cises, to pay the debts and provide for the common 
defence and general welfare of the United States; 
hut all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform 
throughout the United States: 

3. To borrow money on the credit of the United 
States: 

3. To regulate commerce with foreign nations, 
and among the several States, and with the Indian 
tribes: 

4. To establish an uniform rule of naturalization, 
and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies 
throughout the United States: 

5. To coin money, regulate the value thereof, 
and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights 
and measures: 

6. To provide for the punishment of counterfeit- 
ing the securities and current coin of the United 
States: 

T. To establish post offices and post roads: 

8. To promote the progress of science and useful 
arts, by securing, for limited times, to authors and 
inventors, the exclusive right to their respective 
writings and discoveries: 

9. .To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme 
Court: To define and punish piracies and felonies 
committed on the high seas, and oflences against 
the law of nations: 

10. To declare war, grant letters of marque and 
reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on 
land and water. 

11. To raise and support armies: but no appro- 
priation of money to that use shall be for a longer 
term than two years: 

12. To provide and maintain a navy: • 

13. To make rules for the^government and regu- 
ation of the land and naval forces: 

14. To provide for calling forth the militia to exe- 
cute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, 
and repellnvasionsi 

15. To provide for organizing, arming, and discip- 
lining the militia, and for governing such part of 
them as may be employed in the service of the 
United States, reserving to the States respectively 
the appointment of the officers, and the authority of 
training the militia, according to the discipline pre- 
scribed by Congress. 

16. To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatsoever over such district (not exceeding ten 



miles square) as may by cession of particular S'ates, 
and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat ot 
the Government of the United States, and to exer- 
cise like audiority over all places purchased by the 
consent of the legislature of the State in which the 
same shail be, for the erection of forts, magazines, 
arsenals, dock yards, and other needful buildings: — 
and 

17. To make all laws which shall be necessary 
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing 
powers, and all other powers vested by this Consti- 
tution in the Government of the United States, or 
in any department^ officer thereof. 

Skc ix. 1. The'migration or importation of such 
persons as any*t»f the States now existing shall think 
proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Con-* 
gress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred 
and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on 
such importation, 1 not exceeding ten dollars for each 
person. 

2. The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus 
shall not be suspended, uiiless when in case of re- 
bellion or invasion the public safety may require it. 

3. No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall 
be passed. 

4. No capitation, or other direct tax shall oe laid, 
unless In proportion to the census or enumeration 
herein before directed to be *taken. 

5. No tax or duty shall be laid on articles export- 
ed from any State. No preference shall be given by 
any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports 
of one State, over those of another; nor shall vessels 
bound to or from one State, be obliged to enter, 
clear, or pay duties in another. 

6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury, 
but in consequence of appropriations made by law; 
and a regular statement and account of the receipts 
and expenditures of all public money shall be pub- 
lished from time to time. 

7. No title of nobility shall be granted by the 
United States* and no person holding 1 any office of 
profit or trust under them, shall, without the con- 
sent of Congress, accept of any present, emolument, 
office or title of -any kind whatever, from any king, 
prince or foreign state. 

Sec x. 1. No state shall enter into any treaty, al- 
liance or confederation, grant letters of marque and 
reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make any 
thing but gold and silver coin a tender in payment 
of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto 
law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or 
grant any title of nobility. 

2. No State shall, without the consent of the Con- 
gress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or ex- 
ports, except what may be absolutely necessary for 
executing its inspection laws; and the net produce 
of all duties and imposts laid by any State on im- 
ports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury 
of the United States, and all such laws shall be sub-, 
ject to th 4 * revision and control of the Congress. 
No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay 
any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war, in 
time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact 
with another State, or with a foreign powea. or en- 
gage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such im- 
minent danger as will not admit of delay. 

Art. II. Sec. i. 1. The executive power shall be 
vested in a President of the United States of Ame- 
rica. . He shall hold his office during the term of 
four years, and, together with the Vice President, 
chosen for the same term, be elected as follows: — 

2. Each State shall appoint, in such manner as 
tjie legislature thereof may direct, a number of elec- 
tors, equal to the whole number of Senators and 



THE BXAMINER, 



Representatives to which the State may be entitled 
in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, 
or person holding an office of trust or profit under 
the United States, shall be appointed an elector. 

3. The electors shall meet in their respective States* 
and vote by ballot for two persons, of wham one at 
least shall not be an inhabitant of lite same State with 
themselves. And thev shall make a list of all the per* 
sons voted for, and of the number of votes for eaehg 
which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit 
staled, to the seat of government of the United States, 
directed to the President of the Senate. The Ptesident 
of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and 
Souse qf Representatives, open all the certificates, and 
the votes shall then be counted. The ^person having 
the greatest number of votes shall be the .President, if 
such number be a majority of the whole number of 
electors appointed; and if there be moreihan one who 
have such majority, and nave an equal number of votes, 
then the House of Representatives shall immediately 
choose by ballot one of them far President > and if no 
person have a majority \ then from the Jive highest on 
the list the said house shall in like manner choose the 
President. But in choosing the President, the voles 
shall be taken by States, the representation from each 
State having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall 
consist of a member or members from two thirds of the 
States, and a majority of all the States shall be nect - 
sary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of a 
President, the person having the greatest number of 
votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But 
if there should remain two or more who have equal 
votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the 
Vice President. — [Annulled. See amendments, Art. 

XII.] 

4. The Congress may determine the time of 
choosing the electors, and the day on which they 
shall give their votes; which day shall be the same 
throughout the United States. 

5. No person, except a natural bom citizen, or a 
citizen of the United states at the time.of the adop- 
tion of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office 
of President; neither shall any person be eligible to 
that office, who shall not have attained to the age of 
thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident 
within the United States. 

6. In case of the removal of the President from 
office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to 
discharge the powers and duties of the said office, 
the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and 
the Congress may, by law, provide for the case of 
removal, death, resignation, or inability, both of the 
President anil Vice President, declaring what officer 
shall then act as President, and such officer shall 
act accordingly, until the disability be removed, or 
a President shall be elected. 

7. The President shall, at stated times, receive 
tor his services a compensation, which shall neither 
be increased nor diminished during the period for 
which he shall have been elected, and he shall not 
receive within that period any other * emolument 
from the United States, or any of them. 

8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, 
he shall take the following oath or affirmation: 

9. **1 £> solkbutlt awiLLa (or affirm) that i, will 

FArmVtJLLT EXECUTE THE OFMCB OT PBISIDSKT OF 
TBS OJflTKD STATES, AND WILL) TO TBS BB8T OF XT 
ABILITY, P&E8XRVE, PROTECT, ABJ> DBfEJLD TBS COB- 
•TITUTIOH OF TUB UNITED STATES." 

Sec. ii. 1. 1*he President shall be commander in 
chief of the army and navy of the United States, 
and of the militia of the several States, when called 
into the actual service of the Uoited States; he may 
require the opinion, in writing, of the principal offi- 



cer in each of, the executive departments, upon sat 
subject relating to the duties of their respective of- 
fices) and he shall have power to grant reprieve* 
and pardons for offences against the United States, 
except in cases of impeachment. 

% He shall have power, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provid- 
ed two-thirds of the Senators present concur: and 
he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and 
consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, 
other public ministers, and consuls, judges of the 
supreme court, and all other officers of the United 
States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise 
provided for, and which shall be established by law. 
But the Congress may, by law, vest the appointment 
of such inferior officers as they think proper, m the 
President alone, in the courts of law, or in the beads 
of departments. 

3. The President shall have power to fill up all 
vacancies that may happen during the recess of the 
Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire 
at the end of their next session. 

Sxc. hi. 1 . He shall, from time to time, give to 
the Congress information of the state of the Unions 
and recommend to their consideration, such mea- 
sures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; 
he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both 
houses, or either of them, and in case of disagree- 
ment between them with respect to the time of ad- 
journment, he may adjourn them to such time as he 
shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and 
other public ministers; he shall take care that the 
laws be faithfully executed; and shall commission all 
the officers of the United States. 

Sec iv. 1. The President, Vice President, and 
all civil officers of the United States, shall be remov- 
ed from office on impeachment for, and conviction 
of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and mis- 
demeanours. 

Art. 1IL Sec. i. 1. The judicial power of the 
United States shall be vested in one Supreme Court 
and in such, inferior Courts ss the Congress may, 
from time to time, ordain and establish. The judges* 
both of the Supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold 
their offices during good behaviour; and shall* at 
stated times, receive tor their services a compensa- 
tion which shall not be diminished during the'ur con- 
tinuance in office. 

Sec ii. 1. The judicial power shall extend to all 
cases in law and equity, arising under this constitu- 
tion, the laws of the United States, and treaties 
made, or which shall be made, under their authori- 
ty; to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public 
ministers snd consuls; to ail cases of admiralty and 
maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to which the 
United States shall be a party, to controversies be* 
tween two or more States, between a State and citi- 
zens of another State, between citizens of different 
States, between citizens of the same State claiming 
lands under grants of different States, and between 
a State, or the citizens thereof, and foreign States, 
citizens or subjects [See Amendment*, Art* xn] 

2. In all cases affecting ambassadors, other pub- 
Be ministers snd consuls, and those in which a State 
shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall hajre eiv 
ginal jurisdiction. In all the other eases before 
mentioned, tlie Supreme Court shall have appellate 
jurisdiction, both ss to law snd fact, with such ex- 
ceptions, and under such regulations* as the Con* 
gress shall make. 

3. The triul of all crimes, except in cases of im- 
peachment, shall be by jury; and such trials shall 
be held in the State where the said crimes shall have 

I been committed; but when, not committed wkhin 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



9 



amy State, the trial shall be at such place or places 
as the Congress may by law hare directed. 

Sac in. 1. Treason against the United States, 
amaH consist only in levy ing t war against them, or in 
adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and com- 
fort. No person shall be. convicted of treason, un- 
less on the testimony of two witnesses to the same 
overt act, or on confession in open court. 

% The Congress shall have power to declare the 
punishment of treason; but no attainder of treason 
•ball work corruption of blood or forfeiture, except 
during the life of the person attainted. 

Abt. IV. Sic. i. 1. Full faith and credit shall be 
given Hi each State, to the public acts, records, and 
Judicial proceedings of every other State. And the 
Congress may, by general laws, prescribetthe man- 
ner in which such acts, records, and proceedings, 
•hall be proved, and the effect thereof. 

Sic. n. 1. The oitiaens of each State shall be 
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens 
m the several States. 

2. A person charged in any State, with treason, 
felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice 
and be found in another State, shall, on demand of 
toe Executive authority of the State from which he 
fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State 
having jurisdiction of the crime. 

3. No person held to service or labour in one 
State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, 
•hall, in consequence of any law or regulation there- 
in, be discharged from such service or labour; but 
•hall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom 
such service or labour may be due. 

• Sxc. m. 1. New States may 1 be admitted by the 
Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be 
formed or erected whhin the jurisdiction of any 
other State, nor any State be formed by the Junc- 
tion of two or more States, or parts of States, with- 
out the consent of the Legislatures of the States 
concerned, as well as of the Congress. 

2. The Congress shall have power to dispose of, 
and make all needful rales and regulations respect- 
ing the territory or other property belonging to the 
United States) and nothing in this constitution shall 
be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the 
United States, or of any particular State. 

Sac rv. 1. The United States shall guarantee to 
every 8tate in this Union, a republican form of go- 
vernment, and shall protect each of them against 
invasion* and on application of the Legislature, or 
of the Executive, (when the Legislature cannot be 
convened,) against domestic violence. 

A st. V. The Congress, whenever two-thirds of 
both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose 
amendments to this constitution, or on the applica- 
tion of the Legislatures of two-thirds of the several 
States, shall call a Convention for proposing amend- 
ments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all in- 
tents and purposes, as part of this constitution, when 
ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the 
several States, or by Conventions in three-fourths 
thereo£ as the one or the other mode of ratification 
may be proposed by the Congress-. Provided, that 
no amendment which may be made prior to the year 
one thousand eight hundred and eight, shall in any 
manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the 
ninth section of the first article; and that no State, 
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal 
suffrage in the Senate. 

An*. VI. AH debts contracted, and engagements 
entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, 
shall be as valid against the United States under this 
Constitution, as under the confederation. 

fc This Constitution, and the laws of the United 



States which shall be made in pursuance thereof) 
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under 
the authority of the United States, shall be the su- 
preme law of the land; and the judgesin every State 
shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitu- 
tion or laws of any State to the contrary notwith- 
standing. 

3. The Senators and Representatives before men- 
tioned, and the members of the several State Legis- 
latures, and all executive and judicial officers, both 
of the United States and of the several States, shall 
he bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Con- 
stitution; but no religious test shall ever be required 
as a qualification to any office or public trust under 
the United States. 

AaT. VIL 1. The ratification of the Conventions of 
nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment 
of this Constitution between the States so ratifying 
the same. 

Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of 
the States present, the seventeenth day of Septem- 
ber, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hun- 
dred and eighty seven, and of the Independence of 
the United States of America, the twelfth. In wit- 
ness whereof, we have hereunto subscribed our 
names. 

Geobge WASHnrsTov, 
President, and Deputy from Virginia* 



Nxw Haxpsbibe. 
John Langdon. 
Nicholas Gilman. 

Massachusetts. 
Nathaniel Gorham. 
Rufus King. 

ComrxcTieuT. 
William Samuel Johnson. 
Roger Sherman. 

New Yobx. 
Alexander Hamilton. 

New Jebset, 
William Livingston. 
David Brearly. 
William Paterson. 
Jonathan Dayton. 

PSBBSYLVAXIA. 

Benjamin Franklin. 
Thomas Mifflin. 
Robert Morris. 
George Clymer. 
Thomas PHzsimmons. 
Jared IngersoU. 
James Wilson. 
Governeur Morris. 

Meet, 



Delaware. 
George Read. 
Gunning Bedford, jur. 
John Dickinson. 
Richard Bassett. 
Jacob Broom. 

JUABTXABO. 

James M'Henry. ' 

Daniel of St Tho. Jenifer. 

Daniel Carrol. 

VineiaiA. 
John Blair. 
James Madison, jur. 

Nobth Cabousa. 
William Blount. 
Richard Dobbs Speight. 
Hugh Williamson. 

South Cabouita. , 
John Rutledge. 
C. Coatesworth Pinokney. 
Charles Pinckney. 
Pierce Butler. 

GsoaaiA. 
William Few. 
Abraham Baldwin. 



William Jackbov, 
Secretary. 
AMENDMENTS. 
First Congress, fir*t session. March 4, 1789. 

Art. 1. Congress shall make no law respecting 
an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free 
exercise thereof j or abridging the freedom of speech, 
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably 
to assemble, and to petition the Government foe a 
redress of grievances. \ 

* Abt. % A well regulated militia being necessary 
to the security of a free State, the right of the peo- 
ple to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. 

Abt. 3. No soldier, shall, in time of peace, be 
quartered in any bouse, without the consent of the 
owner; nor in time of war, but in a manner to be pre- 
scribed by law. 

Abt. 4. The right of the people to be secure in 
their persons, bouses, papers, and effects* against 
unreasonable searches and seiaures, shall not be vie* 



10 



THE EXAMINER, 



lated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon proba- 
ble cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and par- 
ticularly describing the place to be searched, and the 
person or things to be seized. 

Abt. 5. No person, shall be held to answer for a 
capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a pre- 
sentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in 
cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the 
militia, when in actual service, in time of war or pub- 
lic danger; nor shall any person be subject for the 
same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or 
limb; nor shall be compelled, in any criminal case, 
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of 
fife, liberty, or property, without due process of law; 
nor shall private property be taken for public use 
without just compensation. 

Aut. 6. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused 
shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by 
an impartial jury of the State and district wherein 
the crime shall have been committed, which district 
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and 
to be informed of the nature and cause of the accu- 
sation; to be Confronted with the witnesses against 
him; to have compulsory process for obtaining wit* 
nesses in his favour; and to have the assistance of 
counsel for his defence. 

Art. 7. In suits at common law, where the value 
in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right 
of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried 
by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any 
court of the United States, than according to the 
rules of the common law. 

Abt. 8. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor 
excessive fines imposed, nor Cruel and unusual pun- 
ishments inflicted. 

Art. 9. The enumeration, in the Constitution, of 
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or dis- 
parage others retained by the people. 

Art., 10. The powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to 
the people. 
Third Congress, second session. December 2d, 1793. 

Art. 11. The judicial power of the United States 
shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or 
equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the 
United States,"by citizens of another State, or by 
citizens or subjects of any foreign State. [See Jrt. 
3d, See. 2d, clause 1.] 
Eighth Congress, first session. October 17//*, 1803. 

Art. 12. 1. The electors shall meet in their respec- 
tive 8tates, and vote by ballot for President and Vice 
President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an in- 
habitant of the same State with themselves; they 
shall name in their ballots the person voted for as 
President, and in distinct ballots the persons voted 
for as Vice President; and they shall make distinct 
lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all 

Eersons voted for as Vice President, and of the nura- 
er of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and 
certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, directed to the Presi- 
ident of the Senate; the President of the Senate shall, 
mi the presence of the Senate and House of Uepre 
tentative*, open all the certificates, and the vote% 
shall therf be counted; the. person having the great- 
est number of votes for President, shall be the Pres- 
ident, if such number be a majority of the whole 
number of electors appointed; and if no person have 
such majority, then from the persons having the 
highest numbers, not exceeding three, on the list of 
those voted for as President, the House of Repre- 
sentatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the 
President But in choosing the President, the votes 
•hall be taken by States the representation from 



each State having one vote; a quorum for this pur* 
pose shall consist of a member or members from two- 
thirds of the States, and a majority of all the States 
shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of 
Representatives shall nqt choose a President when* 
ever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, 
before the fourth % day of March next following, then 
the Vice President shall act as President, as in the 
case of the death or other constitutional disability^ 
the President. 

2. The person having the greatest number of 
votes as Vice President, shall be the Vice President* 
if such number be a majority of the whole number 
of electors appointed; and if no person have a ma- 
jority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, 
the Senate shall choose the Vice President: a quo- 
rum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the 
whole number of Senators, and a majority of the 
whole number shall be necessary to a choice. 

3. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the 
office of President, shall be eligible to that of Vice. 
President of the United States. [See Jrl. 2a\ Sec. 1st, 
Clause 3d.] ' 

NOTES. 
The following amendments have also been pro* 
posed by Congress, but not ratified by the States. 

1. After the first enumeration required by the 
first article of the Constitution, there shall be one 
Representative for every thirty thousand, untd the 
number shall amount to one hundred, after which 
the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, 
that there shall be not less than one hundred repre- 
sentatives, nor less than one representative for every 
forty thousand persons, until the number of repre- 
sentatives shall amount to two hundred; after which 
the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, 
that there shall be not less than two hundred repre- 
sentatives, nor more than one representative for 
every fifty thousand persons. [Proposed at (he first 
session of the first Congress.] 

2. No law varying the compensation for the servi- 
ces of the Senators and Representatives, shall take 
effect, until an election of Representatives shall have 
intervened. [Proposed at lite first session of the first. 
Congress.] 

3. If any citizen .of the United States shall accept, 
claim, receive or retain any title of nobility ov honor, 
or shall, without the consent of Congress, accept, 
and retain any present, pension, office or emolument 
of any kind whatever from any emperor, king, 
prince or foreign power, such person shall cease to 
be a citizen of the United States, and shall be inca- 
pable of holding any office of trust or profit under 
them or either of them. [Proposed at the second ses- 
sion of the eleventh Congress.] 

BRIEF HISTORY 

Of the formation of the Federal Government, m an 

iftjDEESS UFOK THE SoVEBEIOirTY OP TH1 STATES, - 

delivered before the State Rights Association of Penn- 
sylvania, and a Public Meeting of Citizens, on the 
4th of March, 1834, at the Commissioners' Hall, m 
the Northern Liberties of Philadelphia. 

Bl A MSMBIB Ot THE ASSOCIATION. 

Fellow Citizens:- . ' 

We are assembled in commemoration o. the day upon 
which, three and thirty years ago, » »«^ f b ' < J *™ lu : 
tion placed in the Eiecutivc cSair, the P^F*** 
American liberty, Thomas Jefferson. * ■"*• *£* 
"Revolution," not in a figurative sense of 'that term, but 
M the true expression tS ^*^^$£r&& 
the theory of the government as then maintained, which 
l««^om P U.hed~ythateve«t ? «d which irertcred the 
feder^vc P oharacte/of our Union, and ■"^pecP* 
from the despotism of a grand consolidated •mwra. 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



II 



It is not the propose ot bim wno now addresses yon, to 
pronounce an eulogiom upon the sage whose mortal re- 
mains now repose on the retired ana peaceful summit of 
Monti cello. A more spproprihte occasion for such an 
offering, will be presented at the approaching anniversary 
of hit birth, when to more sble hands, will no doubt be 
confided, the task of recalling to memory the deeds ot 
the man, whom the people once delighted to honour; 
not, however, it is hoped, in the spirit of man-worship, 
or of debasing adolstioo, but, in that spirit of feneration 
lor the great principles of freedom, whioh were so emi- 
nently personified in that patriotic statesman. Mr pre* 
sent design, and that for which I bar© been especially in- 
vited by the Slate Rights Association, is simply to lay be- 
fore you, in language adapted to the comprehension of 
all, a history of the formation of our government, and 
some detail of those political facts, upon which the great 
doctrine of State Sovereignty is founded. 

In a republican government, where the highest offices 
and honours are alike accessible to the poor and to the 
rich — where there is no titled aristocracy invested with 
privileges denied to the rosss of the people; and where 
education is within the reach almost of all — it behooves 
every man to have an acquaintance with the nature of the 
ajovernraent under which be lives, and io the administer- 
ing of which, he may soma day be called to take a part 
Without such acquaintance, how is it possible for ooe 
to enter upon an office with the hopes of rendering the 
country a service, which, let me remark by the way, is 
the onlv legitimate motive with which office should be 
sought? lgnoraot of the first principles of the science of 
government, and even of the charaoterof the one which he 
aeeks to serve, he roost enter upon his duties with as lit- 
tle capacity to perform them, as would n landsman pos- 
aess, who bad never seen a compass, to navigate a ship 
across the ocean. I do not mean to say that every man 
•a bound to be a statesman, or to be deeply skilled in poli- 
tical learning, but simply that no one should be ignorant of 
those elementary and fundamental principles, which have 
from the organization of our government to the present day, 
constituted the test of parties, or of those historical truths 
an acquaint * nee with which is essential to a right under- 
standing of the subject. 

You all well know, fellow eitixens, that the great point 
upon which the federal and democratic parties were origi- 
nally divided, was the character of the federal govern- 
ment The federal party maintained that it was a govern- 
ment formed by tbe whole people of the thirteen United 
8tates,as one aggregate mass,in the same manner that the 

Jovernment of Pennsylvania was formed by the people of 
Pennsylvania, as one sggregate mass. The Democratic 
party maintained that the government was formed, not 
by tbe whole people of the united Slates as one aggre- 
gate mass, but by tbe people of the thirteen States, 
in their separate capacities of thirteen free, Sovereign 
and Independent communities. Upon this distinction, 
depends the whole question. If the federal doctrine be 
true, then tbe government of the United States is a con- 
solidated empire, towards which, the several States 
stand in the same relation, that the counties of Penn- 
sylvania stand to the State. But if, on the other hand, 
the democratic doctrine be true, then tbe government 
is a federal government, formed by a lonfederation 
of republics, each possessing rights which have never 
been delegated to the federal head. These two theories of 
government involve the most important consequences as 
respects the liberty of the people, and the union ot the 
Slates, and as there can be no better mode of ascertaining 
which of the two is the true theory, than by referring to 
history, I shall beg your earnest attention to the follow- 
ing recital. 

Under the old Colooisl government of Great Britain, 
each of her colonies on the American continent, was 
wholly independent of the rest Bach had its own Go- 
vernor, its own Legislature, Its own Judicial ' tribunals, 
and its own code of laws, and each wss subject to no other 

Erisdiction or authority, than that of the mother country, 
sen stood to the crown of Great Britain, In precisely the 
name relation as tbe provinces of Canada and New Bruns- 
wick now stand, and each, had it possessed the physical 
strength necessary to sustain it in the act, might, if it had 
chosen, have declared its individual separation from the 
mother country, and taken its rank amongst the powers 
of the earth* as a free, Sovereign and Independent nation. 



The limited population and resources, however, of 
each of the colonies, disqualified it for separate action; 
and when the period arrived at whioh the oppression ot 
tbe parent Stale could no longer be borne by the chil- 
dren, a sense of common danger naturally induced tbeni 
to unite in one common effort to throw off the yoke.— 
The first congress, which was assembled to take into con- 
sideration the actual situation of the colonies in reference 
to their differences with Great Britain, met at the Car- 
penter's Hall, in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th of 
September, 1774, not qqite sixty yeara ago. Thia body 
consisted of Delegates, from New Hampshire, Massachu- 
setts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Con- 
necticut, from the city and county of New York, and other 
counties in the Province of New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, New Castle, Kent and Sussex, in Delaware, 
Maryland, Virginia and North Carolina, and continued 
in session until the 26th of October, when it dissolved, 
after recommending delegates to meet again on the 10th 
of the following May. During its aitting, this Congress 
amongst other things, resolved, "that the Congress ap- 
prove the opposition of tbe inhabitants of Massachusetts 
Bay, to the obnoxious acts of Parliament; and if the aame 
shall be attempted to be carried into execution by force, 
in such case all America ought to support them in their 
opposition." It also adopted an address to the people 
of Great Britain upon tbe subject of the grievances of the 
colonies, and a petition to the King, and resolved, that 
letters be addressed to the people of Quebec, and to the 
colonies of St. John's, Nova Scotia, Georgia, and East 
aod West Florida, inviting them to unite in resistance to 
the tyranny of Great Britain. , 

On the 10th of May, 1775, the second Congress assem- 
bled at the State Home in Philadelphia. On the 1st of 
Aogust it adjourned until the 5th of September, from 
which day it remained in permanent session until after 
tbe consummation of the act, which dissolved the con- 
nexion with tbe mother country. 

It is foreign to the object of ibis address, to detail the 
inoi dents of this eventful period. Suffice it to say, that 
on tbe 19th of June, George Washington was commis- 
sioned the "General and Commander in Chief of the 
Army of tbe United Colonies" — that on the same day. 
Congress resolved, "that they would maintain, assist, and 
adhere to George Washington, with their livea and for- 
tunes in the same cause"— that on the 13th of Septem-. 
tember, delegates from Georgia took their seats in Con-| 
grcss, and completed the number of tbe thirteen States 
which had resolved to be free — that on the 13th of De- 
cember, a naval armament of thirteen ships, wss resolved 
on— that on the S7tb of February, 1776, the colonies were 
laid off into military departments— that on the 23d of 
March, letters of marque and reprisal were authorized 
—and that on the 10th of May, it was resohed, to "re- 
commend to the respective assemblies and conventions of 
the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to 
the exigency of their aflairs had been established, to 
adopt such a government aa should, in tbe opioioo of tbe 
representatives of the people, best conduce to the hap- 
piness and safety of their constituents in particular, aod 
of America in general." 

All these measures, let it be remembered, were adopt- 
ed prior to the Declaration of Independence, and whilst 
the colonies were still united to the British empire, but 
aa they produced no change in the policy of the king, no- 
thing was left to the colonists, but to take the final step 
of separation. 

On the 10th of Jone,a committee waa appointed to pre- 
pare a declaration to the following effect.— "That the 
United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and 
independent State*; that they are absolved from all alle- 
giance to the British crown; and that all political connex- 
ion between them and the State of Great Britain, ia, and 
ought to be, totally dissolved." This noble determina- 
tion was promptly sustained by Pennsylvania. On tbe 
25th of June, a declaration of the deputies of that State 
met in provincial conference, expreujog their willingness 
to concur io a vote declaring the # United Colonies Free 
and Independent States, wss laid before Congress and 
read, and on the 98th of June, the committee, through its 
Chairman, Thomas Jefferson, reported a draft, which 
waa subsequently discussed, and finally adopted and sign- 
ed, on the 4th of July, in the form of the document so 
well known to as all, as the Declaration of Independence, 



1* 



THE EXAMINER, 



In that g lorioat instrument, the* troth wri distinctly 
proclaimed to the world, that the act of separation from 

| Great Britain, was * joint and teveral act— that the thir- 
teen colonies, although they had united for the purpose 
Of acting together in resistance to Great Britain, had not 
agreed to become one consolidated State, but had resolv- 
ed to commence their independent existence* as thirteen 
distinct 9tatoa, with all the power* and attributes of indi- 
vidual sovereignty. The declaration was in these me-* 
norable words — "We, therefore, the Repreientatives of 
the United State* of America, in General Congress as- 
sembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world 
for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and 
by the authority of the good people of these colonic*, so- 
lemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies 
are, and of right ought to bo free and independent State* 
— that they are absolved from all allegiance to the Bri- 
tish crown, and that aH political connexion between them 
and the «Sta*e of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, to- 
tally dissolved, and that as Free and Independent State*, 
they ha? e full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract 
alliances, establish commerce, and to do alf other things 
which Independent State* may of right do." 

And here I will take occasion to remark, that the term 
•State" Is susceptible of several different interpretations, 
according to the sense in which it is applied. It some- 
times means the territory comprised within certain geo- 
graphical boundaries, as when it is said, we reside in the 
State of Pennsylvania. It sometimes means the govern- 
ment of a State; as if It were said, the State of Pennsyl- 
vania has appointed commissioners to treat with New 
Jersey, relative to the navigation of the Delaware. But 

| in its most ordinary sense, it mean* a people who are 

/bound together by a social compact, which constitutes 
them one nation. Slate in this sense/ is but another 
name for nation, and when this term was employed in the 
Declaration ot Independence, in reference to "the State 
of Great Britain," it could only have meant the nation of 
Greet Britain. And so when State* were used in refer- 
ence to the colonies, it could only have meant the people 
of each colony, now become an independent nation. 

But to resume the subject The colonies, having, by 
this act, jointly and severally thrown off the yoke of the 
mother country, thev prepared to encounter the perils to 
which that bold and determined measure had exposed 
them. In the war which followed, they seted in their 
new capacity of free and independent States. Each one 
established Its own commerce; each one levied war, and 
maintained its own army, out of its own private resourc- 
es, besides contributing towards the support of the conti- 
nental army, its lair proportion; and each one performed 
••all other things which independent States may of right 
do," except those things which were specifically entrust- 
ed to Congress, by the States which had united. So far 
from there having been any ground for the allegation 
which has been made by some, that the separation of the 
States from Great Britain, took place as the act of a single 
natron, there was not, for near five years after the revolu- 
tion began, even so much as an instrument of confedera- 
tion between them. Although the subject was proposed 
before the Declaration of Independence, yet it was not un- 
til the 15th of November, 1777, that articles of confedera- 
tion were first executed by the delegates in Congress as- 
sembled— with the view, as they stated In a circular letter, 
sent with the articles, to each of the States, of "securing 
the freedom, sovereignty, and independence of the United 
States"— nor until the 9th of July, 1778, that they were 
ratified by a subsequent Congress— nor until the 50th of 

/ JjOtt sryt 178 ^, that they were ratified by all the StatesTso 

' s$ toreRUeT them binding on eti/rr. 

By these articles of confederation, the terms of the 
Union between the whole thirteen States were first reduc- 
ed to- a systematic written compact, and it is to that in- 
strument we are to look for our exposition of the relation 
toward* each other, which was at that time held to exist. 
We shall not long be obliged to search, before we discov- 
er that the confederation referred to, was one between 
I parties, each one of which considered itself a distinct and 
separate State, or nation, and not a compact between indi- 
vidual members of a single nation. The first three arti- 
cles of the instrument which is entitled, "Articles of Con- 
federation and Perpetual Union," run thus: 

"Aritctc 1. The style of tbi* Confederacy shall be, the 
Unrted State* of AmaUxT 



"Article t. Each State retains it* Sovereignty, Frae- 
dom, and Independence, and every power, jurisdiction 
and right, which it not by this confederation expressly 
delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." 

"Article S. The said State* hereby severally enter into 
a firm league of friendship with each other for their com- 
mon defence, the security ef their liberties, and their mu- 
tual and |eneral welfare, binding themselves to assist each 
other against all force offered to, or attacks made, upon 
ttem, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, 
trade, or any pretence whatever." 

Up to this period, it cannot be pretended, that the 
States had parted with their sovereignty, freedom, or in- 
dependence, and If that position be still alleged, we must 
seek for that act of self immolation, at some subsequent 
period of our history. 

Under the form or government just described, the war 
of the revolution was successfully conducted, and brought 
to a happy dose by the acknowledgment of our indepen- 
dence by the Government of Great Britain. As it baa 
just been shown that the parties which made war upon the 
mother country were thUteen sovereign, free and inde- 
pendent States, at least in their own estimation, it will 
be worth while to ascertain what opinion this mother coun- 
try entertained on the subject, in order that we may know 
whether she thought she bad been fighting thirteen differ-! 
ent Sovereign States, or only one. Of this opinion, we 
have evidence before our eyes, in ihe first article of the 
provisional agreement of 30th of November, 1782, in the 
following clear and explicit terms. 

Hfs Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United 
States, viz. New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode 
Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New 
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, .Maryland, 
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, 
to be free, sovereign aod independent States, that he 
treats with them as such, snd for himself, his heirs and 
successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, 
propriety and territorial rights of the same, and every 
part thereof." 

Having thus given the history of the organization ot 
the government, under the ai tides of confederation, it 
will now be in order to give a detail of the occurrences, 
which led to the convocation of the federal convention. 

The government was not long in operation before it 
was discovered, that the want of a power in the confede- 
ration over foreign commerce, was the occasion of much 
embarrassment in its ope rati ops. Each State having 
the power to establish its own tariff of duties, and other- 
wise to regulate its trade, the Congress found it impos- 
sible to negotiate advantageous commercial treaties with 
foreign powers, inasmuch as it could pledge no recipro- 
city (or favours granted, and was wholly destitute of the 
power to coerce by countervailing regulations. So early 
as February 3d, 1781, a resolution was offered in Con- 
gress, •• that it is indispensably necessary that the United 
States in Congress assembled, ehonld be vested with a 
right of superintending the commercial regulations of 
every State," and * that they should be vested with the 
exclusive right of laylna; duties upon all imported arti- 
cles." On the 1 8th of April of that same year, the sub- 
ject was again introduced, and a resolution was passed, 
recommending the Stales to empower Congress to levy 
a small duty on certain specified articles, the proceeds ot 
which to be applied wholly to the discharge of the inte- 
rest^ principal of the debts contracted oo the part of 
the United States, for supporting the war. It was at 
the same time further recommended to the States, to 
raise for the term of 25 years, •* substantial and effective 
revenues," to be applied towards the said debt, and to 
engraft these two principles, if acceded to, as additional 
powers on the Articles of Confederation. 

These recommendations were urged upon the States 
in an able address by the Congress on the 26th April, 
soon after the conclusion of peace, in which they repre- 
sented the advantages that would result to this •* Confe- 
derated Republic" from the adoption of the proposed 
measures, aod took occasioo to say, * that if has ever, 
been the pride and boast of America that the rights for 
which she contended were the rights of human nature," 
* rights which form the basis of thirteen independent J 
States.* 9 

Notwithstanding, however, the ability and xeal with 
with which this appeal was made, the States were reluo- 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY 



IS 



tart to enlarge the powers of tbe Confederation, and •■ 
the consent of all was requisite to give validity to any 
act, nothing decisive was 'accomplished. The subject 
was again brought into view on several different occa- 
sions, snd particularly oo the 13th of July, 1785, in the 
form of a report of a committee, in which the power to 
regulate trade, was solicited of the States, but the result 
was not more propitious. 

At length another mode of effecting the object, was re-* 
sorted to by the friends of the measure. The call for 
additional powers made by those who exercised the fe- 
deral authority, was calculated to excite the jealousy of 
the States, and this may have indisposed some of them to 
lend a favourable ear to it They probably feared, that 
the servants might wish to become masters, and that as 
the Congress already held the sword, it would be unwise 
to permit it also to bold the purse. It was, therefore, 
probably seen, that if any thing was to be effected, it 
could best be done by making the movement for an en- 
largement of powers, proceed from one of the States. 
Virginia being then the largest member of the Confede- 
racy, and being besides a State having, as a consumer of 
foreign eommodoties, the greatest interest in a judicious 
exercise of such a power, was selected as the file leader, 
•nd accordingly we find Mr. Madison offering in tbe Le- 
gislature of that State, on the 30th of November, resolu- 
tions instructing her delegates* in Congress, *'to propose 
a recommendation to the States in Union, to authorize 
fliat assembly to regulate their trade," on certain speci- 
fied principles. The resolutions were, however, not 
adopted, but on the 21st of January, 1786, a resolution 
was psssed, that Commissioners be appointed "to meet 
auch other Commissioners as may be appointed by the 
Other States in the Union, at a time and place to be agreed 
on, to take into consideration the trade of the United 
States; to examine the relative situation and trade of the 
said States; to consider how far an uniform system in their 
commercial regulations may be necessary to their com- 
mon interest, and their permanent harmony, and to re- 
port to the several States such an act relative to this great 
object, as when unanimously ratified by them, will en- 
able the United States in Congress assembled, effectually 
to provide for the same." 

Although this resolution, was adopted on the 21st of 
January, so slow and cautious were the States, that it was 
not until tbe 11th of September, that Commissioners 
from five States alone, viz: Virginia, Delaware, Penn- 
sylvania, New Jersey and New York, assembled at An- 
napolis. The first proceeding of this body, after a full 
communication of sentiments, was the appointment of a 
committee to " prepare a draught of a report to be made 
to the Stales, hating Commissioners attending at this 
meeting," which draught having been reported on a sub- 
sequent day, was adopted on the 14th. In that report it 
waa stated, that Commissioners hail been appointed by 
the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, and North Carolina, none of whom had attended, 
and that as the representation was too " partial and de- 
fective," those assembled did not conceive it "adviseable 
to proceed on the business of their mission." " Deeply 
impressed, however, with the magnitude and importance 
of the objects confided to them on this occasion," says 
the report, ** your Commissioners cannot forbear to in- 
dulge an expression of their earnest and unanimous wish, 
that speedy measures may be taken to effect a general 
meeting of the State; in a future convention, for the 
same, and such other purposes, as the situation of puBlic 
affairs may be found to require." The report concludes 
by recommending " the appointment of Commissioners 
to meet at Philadelphia on the second Monday in May 
next, to talte into consideration the situation of the United 
States, to devise such further provisions as shall appear 
to them necessary to render the constitution of the Fede- 
ral Government adequate to tbe exigencies of the Union, 
and to report such an net for that purpose to the United 
States In Congress assembled, as when agreed to by them 
and afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of every 
State, wlH effectually provide for the same." 

In pursuance of this reconmendatieo, delegates were 
appointed as fellows: 

By New Jersey, on the 33d of November, 1786. 

By Virginia, oo the 4th of December, 1786. 

By Pe nns y l v a nia, on the 90th of December, 1786* 

By North Carolina, on tbe 6th of January, 1767. 



By Delaware, on the 3d of February, 1787. 

By Georgia, on the 10th of February, 1787. 

These manifestations of pupJio sentiment being in ae» 
eordance with the views so repeatedly urged by Congress, 
Induced that body to press the subject upon the eouaide- 
ration of the remaining States, by the adoption, on the 
21st of'February, 1787, of the following resolution:— 

w Resolved, That in the opinion of Congress, it is ex- 
pedient that, on the second Monday in May neat, a con- 
vention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by 
the several State; be held at Philadelphia, for the tote 
and express purpose of revising the articles ol confedera- 
tion and reporting to Congress and the several Legisla- 
tures, such alterations and .provisions therein, as shall, 
when agreed to in Congress, and oonfirroed by t/ie Stairs, ( 
render toe federal constitution adequate io the exigencies / 
of government, and the preservation of the Union. " ' 

In conformity with this resolution, all the other States 
which had not acted upon the suggestion of the Commis- 
sioners at Annapolis, except Rhode Island, which took 
no part in the Convention, appointed delegates in the fol- 
lowing order: 

New York, on the 28th of February, 1787 

South Carolina, oo the 8th of March, 1787. 

Massachusetts, on the 9tli 4 of April, 1787. 

Connecticut, on tbe 10th of May, 1787. 

Maryland, on the 26th of May, 1787. 

New Hampshire, on the 27th of June, 1787. 

From a perusal of the resolution of Congress* under 
which the delegates assembled, the following facts ap- 
pear: 

First. That the delegates were to be chosen by the ae* 
veral States. 

Secondly. That the convocation of the proposed con- 
vention was '* for the sole purpose of revising the articles 
Of confederation," then subsisting between the thirteen 
sovereign, free, and independent States which by them 
were united, and not for the purpose of forming any new 
government, to be composed of the whole people of the 
thirteen States as an aggregate Mass. 

Thirdly. That the alterations and provisions to be re- 
commended by the Convention, should, before going in- 
to operation, receive the sanction of the States, and 

Fourthly. That these alterations and provisions should 
have no tendency to destroy "the federal constitution," 
that is, the articles, constitution, or compact, at that time 
subsisting, but on the contrary, should be adapted to ren- 
der it •* adequate to the exigencies of government, and 
the preservation of the Union," viz: the Union then sub-S 
listing between the thirteen States, each of which was in | 
full possession of its sovereignty, freedom and indepen- 
dence, and the only Union to which these terms could 
have applied. 

It being thus manifest that the object for which the 
Convention was sssembled, was, not to change the form 
of the government, but simply to " revise the articles of 
confederation," it remains for us to see whether that body 
was properly elected, and whether it did in honesty and 
good faith fulfil the duties of its appointment. This we 
shall learn from the journal of its proceedings, and if 
from that record it shall appear that such was the fact* 
we shall have advanced another step towards establishing 
the position, that the government of the United Statea 
was established by the States, and not by the people aa 
an aggregate mass. 

In the first place then, we learn from a perusal of the 
credentials of the delegates, that they were all chosen by 
their respective State Legislatures, as representatives of 
their respective States, and of thoae States alone, and 

In the second place, that they were appointed for the 
purpose of revising the existing articles of confederation. 

The second Monday of Mar, 1787, was the day fixed 
upon for the meeting of the Convention at Philadelphia. 
The Journal informs us, that on that day, which was the 
14th of the month, "sundry Deputies to the Federal Con- 
vention appeared, but a majority of the States not being 
represented, the members present adjourned from day t«» 
day, until Friday the 25th of the said month, ^ when the 
convention commenced its labours, sfter electing George 
Washington its President The question then presents 
itself, did they act as the Representatives o( sovereign, 
free, and independent States, or, as the representatives 
of the People, as an aggregate mass? Thin queatlon is 
answered by every vote upon which the vess and nays 



14 



THE EXAMINER, 



were recorded. The rotes were given by State*, and 
doc upon the principle of proportionate representation. 
Etch State, whether small or large, had one vote. The 
weight of Delaware, with her sixty thousand population, 
was as great as that of Virginia, with her eight hundred 
and fifty thousand, and so entire a disregard wa'a had to 
proportionate representation, an essential element in a 
constitution framed by an aggregate people, that some of 
Che small States had more deputies than some of the large 



If any doubt could exist on this point it would be dis- 
sipated by this simple statement. The population of the 
five largest states, represented in the Convention was 
8,501,649 whilst that of the -six smallest states, was but 
1,133,588.* Now by the terms upon which the constitu- 
tion was formed, each state having one vote, it may well 
have happened, that some of its most important features 
were adopted by the votes of a majority of the states, con- 
taining less than one third of the whole population, which 
would never had been acceded to, by a majority of the 
people, had tlie government been understood to have 
been formed up?n the principles of one aggregate mass. 
In this statement we have taken only eleven states as re- 
presented in the Convention, that being the greatest num- 
ber at any time present. Rhode Island never appeared 
at all, whilst New Hampshire did not take her seat until 
the 83rd efjuly, subsequent to the withdrawing of New 
York, which took place on the 11th of that month. 

Nor does the* evidence terminate here. The constitu- 
tion entries on its face a declaration that it was formed by 
the States, and not by the whole people as one consoli- 
dated mass. The very title of the government, given in 
I tnat instrument, "The United States," implies indivi- 
duality in the States, and simply means the States at 
that time United. The Preamble, too wbioh declares 
that the objtoi of the constitution is amongst other things 
to form •'a mote perfect union," can only have reference 
to the union then subsisting, which we have shown to be 
a union between Sovereign, free and Independent states, 
and it explicitly assert*, that the Constitution is ordained 
and established for "the United State* of America," and 
not for the people. And here we must uot pass over 
without notice, the important and conclusive fact, that in 
the article of the constitution which designates the agen- 
cy by which the States are to enact laws, for the govern- 
ment of the confederacy, the term "Congress," and not 
Parliament, or assembly is used. The terra "Congress" 
I is one specifically applied to an assemblage of nations, in 
the persons of their Sovereigns, or their representatives, 
and hence the legislative proceedings of the Federal Go- 
vernment, were always styled the proceeedings of "The 
United States in Congress assembled," and not the pro- 
ceedings of the people. 

The mode toj, provided for amending the constitution, 
is also explicit on this subject Alterations must be rati- 
fied by *'lhe Legislatures of three-fourths of the several 
States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof," so, 
that were it now desirable for seventeen of the largest 
States to obtain an alteration of the constitution, to au- 
thorize aets which are not now authorized, it would be in 

•POPULATION 
Of the thirteen States, by the Census e/1790 

Virginia • . 858,078 

Massachusetts . . . 475,337 

Pennsylvania . . 434,373 

North Carolina . . . 393.751 

New York . . 340,130 



Maryland 
South Carolina 
Connecticut 
New Jersey 
Georgia 
Delaware 



New Hampshire 
Rhode Island 

Total population 



3,501,649 

319,738 
340,073 
837,946 
184,139 
88,548 
59,094 

1,123,538 

887,434 
. 68,885 

3*981,486 



the power of the seven smallest States, containing less than 
one tweuh part of the population of the whole country, to 
prevent it.* With this fact staring us in the face, will 
any one pretend to say, that the Government was formed 
by the people as an aggregate mass? If so, he must coo* 
sider the people of 1787, as wholly ignorant of their 
rights, or as destitute of wisdom, in sanctioning a system, 
the practical effect of which at this day, is to enable a 
fraction of a little more than one million of people, to 
defeat the wishes of near twelve millions. 

But this is not all. The seventh and last article of the 
constitution declares, that 

"The ratification of nine States shall be sufficient"— 
(for what?)— "for the establishment of this constitution 
between ttie States so ratifying the same." 

in this article we have the following indisputable ad* 
missions— 

First, That the States formed the constitution, for it 
was only by their ratification that it was made to exist. 

Secondly, That it was only to be binding upon the States 
that should so ratify it* leaving those who should refuse 
to do so, in the full enjoyment of their sovereignty, free- 
dom and independence, to remain as separate nations, or 
to unite under some new instrument 6f federation. 

And as if no doubt should be left upon the ' minds ot 
the people, as to the federative character of the govern- 
ment, the very attestation to the instrument of the mem- 
bers of tl^ convention, declares, that it was "Done i* 
Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States 
present" 

Let us now follow up our history, and see what was the 
form of the ratification. The convention adjourned oa - 
the 17th of September, 1787, and transmitted to the Con- 
gress still acting under the articles of confederation, a 
report of its proceedings. That body, on the 28th ot 
the same month, adopted the following resolution: 

"Resolved unanimously, That the said report, with the re- 
solutions and letter accompanying the same, be transmit- 
ted to the several Legislatures, in order to be submitted 
to a convention of delegates chosen in each State by the 
people thereof, in oonformitv to the resolves of the eon* 
vention, made and provided in that ease. 



t POPULATION 




Oftkettoentihfour States, by the Census e/1830 


New York 


1,934,496 


Pennsylvania • . 


1,330,034 


Virginia 


1,186,897 


Ohio 


937,679 


North Carolina . 


738,470 


Kentneky . 


688,844 


Tennessee • 


684,883 


Massachusetts . 


610,100 


South Carolina • 


581,478 


Georgia • 
Maryland 


516.567 


446,913 


Maine . . 


399,463 


Indiana , 


341,585 


New Jersey . , 


380,779 


Alabama . • 


309,316 


Connecticut . • 


897,711 


Vermont 


880,665 




11,605,118 


- New Hampshire 


869,533 


Louisiana 


. 815,875 


Illinois • • 


157,575 


Missouri . 


137,437 


Mississippi . • 


97,865 


Rhode Island 


97,811 


Delaware • 


76/37 




1,051,683 


District of Columbia 


. 39,853 


Michigan Territory 


31,696 


Arkansas 


. 30,380 


Florida * 


34,735 




136,654 


Total Population 


18/93,395 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 



15 



In conformity with this resolve, the Legislature of each 
State enacted a law, calling a convention of the people 
thereof, in their separate eapaeity of members of a sove- 
reign, free and independent State, and to these conven- 
tions was submitted the constitution for ratification. — 
By these conventions it was ratified, and so clearly were 
those ratifications the acts of the States, and not of the 
people as an aggregate mass, that it was in the power of 
the five smallest States, containing a population of only 
I 623,030 persons, by witholding their assent, to defeat the 
\ adoption of the constitution, against the wishes of the 
(other eight States, containing a population of upwards of 
three millions. Had the constitution beeo intended for 
a new Goxernraent, proposed to be formed by the people 
of the whole United States, as an aggregate mass, very 
different would have been the form of the ratification. — 
Nothing less than a majority ofc-tbe whole people would 
have been requ ren to defeat it, and instead of the State 
of Delaware being allowed as much weight in determin- 
ing the question as' Virginia, she would have bceu allow- 
ed onty the proportion of influence which 60,000 people 
bear to 850,000, that is, the proportion of 1 to 14. 

That these ratifications, although executed by the peo- 
pie Of each State, in their separate and sovereign capaci- 
ties, and not by State Legislatures, were iit the form and 
mode prescribed by the seventh article of the constitution, 
that is, that they vert ratifications of the States, Is appa- 
rent from the following proceedings extracted from the 
Journal of the old Congress. 

"Ukited States is Cairo ress assembled, ? 
Wednesday, July 2, 1788. 5 

The State of New Hampshire having ratified the 
constitution transmitted to them by the act of 28th of Sep- 
tember last, and transmitted to Couajress'their ratification, 
and the same being read, the President reminded Con- 
gress that this was the ninth ratification, transmitted and 
•aid before them: w hereupon it was 

"Ordered, That the ratifications of the constitution of 
the United States, transmitted to Congress, be referred 
to a committee, to examine the same, and report an act 
of Congress for putting the said constitution into opera- 
tion, in pursuance of the resolutions of the late Federal 
Convention. 1 ' 

And here it may not be amiss to. remark, that the term 
"Federal," here applied by Congress to the convention, 
being derived from the Latin word /acta*, a league, a 
stipulation between two or more, is an- additional confir- 
mation of the confederated character of the Go\ eminent, 
in contrast with consolidation, and so universal was the 
acknowledgment of this political troth, that even long 
subsequent to the removal of the Government to Wash- 
ington, that city was called "the federal city," and which 
of you here present, ever heard that the great Federal 
procession of *89 in this city, was to ooro menu morale the 
establishment of a consolidated government? 

At a subsequent day, viz: on the 13th September, 1788, 
the Congress passed a resolution in the following words: 
"Resolved, That the first Wednesday in January next, 
be the day tor appointing electors in the several States, 
which, before the said day shall have ratified the said 
constitution; that the first Wednesday in February next, 
be the day for the electors to assemble in their, respective 
States, and vote for a President, and that the first Wed- 
nesday in March next, be the time, aud the present seat 
of Congress the place for commencing proceedings under 
the said constitution." 

In conformity with this resolution, the elections were 
held. On the 4th of March, 1789, the first Congress 
under the new constitution, assembled at New York, and 
commenced its duties, and on the 30th of April, George 
-Washington, who had been unanimously elected Presi- 
dent of the United States, was inducted into office.— 
Amendments to the Constitution were subsequently made, 
in the form prescribed bv that instalment, and illustra- 
ting in practice the manifest truth, that the States, were 
the creators of the government. By one of those amend- 
ments, it was emphatically declared that "The powers 
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
Suites respectively, or to the People."— Now asthere- 
servaUon of rights implies of necessity the pre-existenee 
of Chose rights, and as it ia very clear, that no rights 
were conferred upon the States, by the federal govejp- 
msot* whose creature it was, it follows that those rights 



thus reserved to the Ststes must have been rights inhe-j 
rent in the Sovereignty of the States. 

Thus have 1 given an account of the origin and charac- 
ter of the constitution, as brief as was consistent with the 
object in view, which was that of proving from documen- 
tary evidence, the important fact, that the government 
under which we live, is stiUu confederation of sovereign, 
free, and independent States, and not a consolidated em- 
pire. If 1 have done this to your satisfaction, it is only 
because the evidence within reach has been so abundant, 
and because it has been recorded in so plain and intelli- • 
gible a nature, that the most unlettered mind can com* 
prebend it. Indeed it is difficult to imagine with such 
a body of harmonious testimony before nim, how as* 
unprejudiced man can advance the position, that the go 
vernment of the United States was formed by the whole 
people as one aggregate mass. It is true, that those who 
maintain this doctrine, rely not so much upon historical 
evidence, as upon verbal criticisms, as if great questions 
of liberty were to be determined by criticisms so close as 
that which could split a hair, 

44 *twixt west and south-west side. " 

The use of the term " nationsl" occasionally employed 
in reference to the federal government, has been seized 
upon as of consolidating import, and yet, under the old 
confederation, the debt of. the government was at that 
time spoken of in the publio documents, as the "national 
debt." 1'he term " constitution" h ami so been urged as 
proof of the establishment of the government by the peo- 
ple as an aggregate mass, upon the ground that " consti- 
tution" is an expression which is not applicable to areom- 
pact existing between independent States, and yet, 1 have 
adduced in this address, several cases wherein the term! 
*' constitution" was applied, before the formation ot the J 
present instrument, to the very articles of confederation. ' 

The main reliance, however, of the advocates of con- 
solidation, for the support ot their theory, is upon the 
phrase, " We, the People of the United States," where 
it occurs in the preamble to the constitution. As this is 
a point which is frequently urged in discussions on the 
constitution, 1 will encroach a Tittle longer ou your time, 
whilst I give a detailed account of the origin of that phrase. 

By referring to the Journal of the Convention, it will 
be found, that on the 6th of August, the first draft of a 
constitution was reported by a committee appointed for 
the purpose. The preamble to that draft commenced as 
follows: 

*« We, the people of the States of New Hampshire, 
Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, 
Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, De- 
laware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Ca- 
rolina, and Georgia, do ordain, declare and establish the 
following constitution, for the government of ourselves 
and our posterity." 

In this phraseology, it is manifest, that "We, the Peo- 
ple," were the people of the several States enumerated, 
and no inference can be drawn Irom it, favourable to the 
doctrine of an aggregate mass In this form, the pream- 
ble was adopted unanimously by the Convention on the 
7th of August, the day after it was repotted by the com- 
mittee. 

After a discussion on the provisions of the draft, until 
the 7lb of September, during which time it does not ap- 
pear that the preamble was ever again brought into view, 
a committee of five was appointed '* to revue tie style of 
and arrange the articles agreed to by the House." 

On the 12th of September, the committee of revision 
reported the constitution as revised in style and arranged 
by them, in which the preamble read as follows: 

««We, the people of the United Stales, in order to form 
a more perfect Union, establish justice, ensure domestic 
tranquillity, provide for the common defence, bromote 
tho general welfare, and secure the blessing of liberty 
to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish 
this constitution for the United States of America.*' 
. The reason for the change by the committee, in the 
phraseology of the preamble, by the insertion of toe 
words " United States," instead of recapitulating the 
names of the several States, is apparent enough, if we 
admit the absence of all design on the part of the com- 
mittee, to be guilty of a wilful frand, as we must do, 
when we consider their high character, and when we see 
that they weakened the strength of the original lanspiage 



16 



THE EXAMINER, 



by declaring thtt the constitution was ordained for the 
United State*, and not simply for " ourselves and our 
posterity." It was not at that time known, whether all 
the State* then united under the existing articles of con- 
federation, would continue in the Union. Rhode Island, 
as hss been seen, did not even send delegates to the Con- 
vention, and consequently, the insertion of their names, 
should any of them refuse, would hare rendered neces- 
sary an a hers t ion of the constitution; and besides this, as 
the phrase " United States," had reference to the States 
United, at that time under the confederation, each one 
of which, at that moment, was in full possession of its 
•■ sovereignty, freedom, and independence,*' and as it 
Js>as intended that the people of each State, as a distinct 
tod separate community, should ratify the constitution, 
no member of the committee could nave anticipated thst 
the day would arrive, when the term, *• we, the people," 
would be construed to mean the people of States, which 
had not retained their sovereignty, freedom and indepen- 
dence. Accordingly, we find, that on the 15th of Sep- 
tember, the day following the report of the revised draft, 
the Convention proceeded " to the comparing of the re- 
port from the committee of revision, with the articles 
which were sgreed to by the House, and to them referred 
for arrangement," ''and the same was read by paragraphs, 
compered, and in some places corrected and amended." 
It does not appear, that any proposition for restoring the 
original reading,*! the preamble was made, and the con- 
elusion is setf-evWent, that the Convention did not dis- 
cern in the change of phraseology, any change in the cha- 
racter of the parties to the constitution, and accordingly, 
« We, the People of the United States," was left as the 
language of that instrument, in the engrossed copy that 
was signed, and which this day exists. 

But, let me ask, fellow citizens, whether the phrase, 

"We, the People of the United States,*' was not the one 

best adapted to express who were the real fraroers of the 

federal government? It ia very certain that it was not 

formed by the Stste governments, but by the people of the 

several Slates, in their sovereign capacity, and to infer 

from the very fact of an exercise of that sovereignty, that 

the States were no longer sovereign, is one of the most 

extraordinary deductions that can be imagined. As well 

/might it be said, that the term •• the good people or these 

/ colonies," employed in the Declaration of Independence, 

' amounted to proof, in spite of all the testimony furnished 

to the contrary, that the people of the colonies were one 



consolidated mass, before they were separated from Great 
Britain. 

Having thus, I trust, conclusively established the fact, 
that the constitution was formed by thirteen sovereign 
States, and not by the people of the thirteen States as an 
aggregate mass, the question may be asked, what great 
principle connected with the liberty of the people, or the 
Union of the States, is involved in the controversy? Off 
what consequence is it to us and to our posterity, whe- 
ther the one or the other theory of government, be the 
true one? Time will not permit me to reply to these 
questions, but I cannot close without remarking, that up- 
on the sovereignty of the States depend State Rights, and 
the momentous issue, whether the federal government ia 
a government of limited powers, or a despotism — whe- 
ther we are freemen or slaves. This could be made to 
appear, but as I have already occupied too much of your 
time, I roust refer you to the Kentucky and Virginia Re- 
solutions of *98 and *99; to Mr. Madison's Report in fa- 
vour of the latter; to the proceedings of your own Legis- 
lature, when democracy was something more than a names, 
and to the opinions pronounced by Chief Justices M 'Keen 
and Tilghroan, in the Supreme Coort of this State, in 
the cases ot Cobbett snd Gideon Olmstead. 

APPENDIX. 
The following is the order in which the thirteen 8tate» 
ratified the feoVral constitution:— 
1 Delaware, . . December 7, 1787 

ft Pennsylvania, . . " 12, « 

5 New Jersey, . . " 18, « 

4 Georgia, . . January 2, 1788 

5 Connecticut, . . " 9, " 

6 Massachusetts, • . February 6, " 

7 Maryland, . . April 28, /« 

8 Sooth Caroline, . . May 83, " 

9 New Hampshire, . June 21, " 

10 Virginia, . . . June 26, 1788 

11 New York, . . July 26, " 

12 North Carolina, . . Nov. 21, 1789 

13 Rhode Island, . . May 29, 1790 
%• North Carolina existed as a separate State or na- 
tion, for upwards of eipht months after the federal go- 
vernment commenced its operations under the present 
constitution, and Rhode Island for near fourteen months* 
and both, had they seen fit, might have continued to do 
so up to the present day. 



PHILADELPHIA: 



Wednesday, August 6, 1834 



The first volume of the Examiner, of which there 
were printed upwards of 7,500 copies, having been 
exhausted, tt has become neceftsary for us to reprint 
in the second volume, for the benefit of neu; subscri- 
ber*, such elementary papers as are required for fre- 
quent reference, and which constitute, as it were, 
the basts Upon which the doctrine of State Rights is 
founded. We commence to day with The Declara- 
tion of Independence, The Articles of Confedera- 
tion, and the Constitution of the United States, 
which are accompanied by a Brief History of the 
formation of the Federal Government, as contained 
in an Address already published in No. 17 of vol. 1. 
These papers will be followed by 

The Alien and Sedition T.aws. 

The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions of >98. 

The Answers of the States to those Resolutions. 

The Kentucky Resolutions of '99. 

The Original Draft by Mr. Jefferson of the Ken- 
tucky Resolutions, and 

Mr. Madison's Report of *99 upon the Virginia 
Resolution* 



If the Examiner possesses any merit, it consists in 
its preservable form, which adapts it for future as 
well as for present use, and it is therefore necessary 
for its permanent success, that each annual volume 
ahould contain a Text Book of the State Rights 
doctrines for constant reference. 



# * # In our reprint of the first thirteen numbers of 
the Examiner, an unfortunate derangement in the 
order of some of the pages took place in Nos. 4 and 
8. Correct copies are now in the course of being re 
printed, which will be forwarded to each subscriber 
who has received the erroneous numbers. 

We have on our fist 700 subscribers who hate not 
received the -first thirteen numbers, any, or afl of 
whom we can supply, if they desire it. 

Twand of this paphh 

For a single copy, - - - $1 50 

For 4 copies, paid for at the same time, 
by that number of subscribers, $5, 
equal per copy to - - - 1 35 

jtot 10 copies, paid for in the same man- 
ner, #10, equaf per copy to - 1 00 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOUBNAX. OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE.,, 

The powers not Delegated to the United State*, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the people jamendmnts U> the Com tt itn ti an, Art, X 



JEtotsW #/ Industry, as sacred as freedom of speech or of the press. 






Vol. IL] 



Philadelphia: Wednesday, August 20, 1834. 



[No. 2. 



ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS. 

An Act concerning Aliens. 

Sec 1. Be it enacted, Sfc. That it shall be 

lawful for the President of the United States, 

at any time during the continuance of this Act 

to order all such Aliens as he shall judge dan- 

gerous to the peace and safety of the United 
tales, or shall have reasonable grounds to 
suspect are concerned in any treasonable or 
secret machinations against the Government 
thereof, to depart out of the territory of the 
United States, within such time as shall be 
expressed in such order ; which order shall be 
served on such Alien by delivering him a copy 
thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, 
and returned to the office of the Secretary of 
State, by the marshal or other person to whom 
the same shall be directed. And in case any 
Alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at 
large within the United States, after the time 
limited in such order for his departure, and 
Hot having obtained a license from the Presi- 
dent to reside therein, or, having obtained 
such license, shall not have conformed thereto, 
every such Alien shall, on conviction thereof; 
be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three 
years, and shall never after be admitted to 
become a citizen of the United States : Pro- 
vided always, and be it further enacted, That 
if any Alien, so ordered to depart, shall prove, 
to the satisfaction of the President, by evi- 
deuce to be taken before such person or per 
sons as the President shall direct, who are for 
that purpose hereby authorized to administer 
oaths, that no injury or danger to the Uni 
ted States shall arise from suffering such Alien 
to reside therein, the President may grant a 
license to such Alien to remain within the 
United States, for such time as he shall judge 
proper, and at such place as he shall designate. 
And the President may also require of such 
Alien to enter into a bond to the United States, 
in such penal sum as he may direct, with one 



or more sufficient sureties, to the satisfaction of 
the person authorized by the President to take 
the same, conditioned for the good behaviour 
of such .Alien during his residence in the 
United States, and not violating his license, 
which license the President may revoke when- 
ever he shall think proper. 

Sec. 2. That it shall be lawful for the Pres- 
ident of the United States, whenever he may 
deem it necessary for the public safety, to or- 
der to be removed out of the territory thereof 
any Alien who may or shall be in prison in 
pursance of this Act; and to cause to be ar- 
rested, and sent out of the United States, such 
of those Aliens as shall have been ordered 
to depart therefrom, and shall not have obtained 
a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in 
the opinion of the President, the public safety 
requires a speedy removal. And if any Alien, 
so removed or sent out of the United States 
by the President, shalf voluntarily return there- 
to, unless by permission of the President of 
the United States, such Alien, on conviction 
thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the 
opinion of the President, the public safety may 
require. 

Sec. 3. That every master or commander 
of any ship or vessel which shall come into 
any port of the United States after the first 
day of July next, shall, immediately on his 
arrival, make report, in writing, to the collect- 
or or other chief officer of the Customs of 
such port, of all Aliens, if < any, on board his 
vessel, specifying their names, ace, the place 
of nativity, the country from which they shall 
have come, the nation to which they belong 
and owe allegiance, their occupation, and a 
description of their persons, as far as he shall 
be informed thereof; and, on failure, every 
such master and commander shall forfeit and 
pay three hundred dollars; for the payment 
whereof, on default of such master or com- 
mander, such vessel shall also be holden, and 
may, by such collector or other officer of the 



18 



THE EXAMINER, 



Customs, be detained. And it shall be the 
duty of such collector, or other, officer, of the 
Customs, forthwith to transmit to the office 
of the Department of State true copies of all 
such returns. 

Sec. 4. That the Circuit and District Courts 
of the United States shall, respectively, have 
cognizance of all crimes and offences against 
this Act. And all marshals and other officers 
of the United States are required to execute all 
precepts and orders of the President of the 
United States, issued in pursuance or by virtue 
of this Act. 

Sec. 6. That it shall be lawful for any Alien 
who may be ordered to be removed from the 
United States, by virtue of this Act, to take 
with him such part of his goods, chattels, or 
other property, as he may find convenient; 
and all property left in the United States, by 
any Alien who may be removed as aforesaid, 
shall be and remain subject to his order and 
disposal, in the same manner as if this Act 
had not been passed. 

Sec. 6. That this Act shall continue and be 
in force for and .during the term of two years 
from the passing thereof! 

[Approved: June 25, 1798.] 

An Act in addition to the Act entitled " An Act for 
the punishment of certain crimes against the United 
States." 

Sec 1. Be it enacted, fyc. That if any 
persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire 
together with intent to oppose any measure or 
measures of the Government of the United 
States, which are or shall be directed by pro- 
per authority, or to impede the operation of 
any law of the United States, or to intimidate 
or prevent any person, holding a place or of- 
fice in or under the Government of the Uni- 
ted States, from undertaking, performing, or 
executing his trust or duty, and if any person 
or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall coun- 
sel, advise, or attempt to procure, any insur- 
rection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combina- 
tion, whether such conspiracy, threatening, 
counsel, advice, or attempt, shall have the pro- 
posed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed 
guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, on con* 
viction before any court of the United States 
having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished 
by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, 
and by imprisonment during a term not less 
than six months, nor exceeding five years ; and 
further, at the discretion of the court, may be 
holden to find sureties for his good behaviour, 
in such sum and for such time as the said court 
may direct. 

Sec. 2. That if any person shall write, print, 
utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to 
be written, printed, uttered, or published, or 



shall, knowingly and wiify^gly, assist or aid ia 
writing, printing, uttering, or publishing, any 
false, scandalous, and malicious writing or 
writings, against the Government of the Uni- 
ted States, or either House of the Congress 
of the United States, or the President of the 
United States, with intent to defame the said 
Government, or either House of the said Con- 
gress, or the said President, or to brine them, 
or either of them, into contempt or cusrepute 
—or to excite against them, or either or any 
of them, the hatred of the good People of the 
United States— or to stir up sedition within 
the United States— or to excite any unlawful 
combinations therein, for opposing or resist- 
ing any law of the United States, or any act 
of the President of the Unked States, done 
in pursuance of any such law, or of the pow- 
ers in him vested by the Constitution of the 
United States — or to resist, oppose, or defeat, 
any such law or act— or to aid, encourage, 
or abet, any hostile designs of any foreign na- 
tion against the United States, their People, 
or Government — then such person, being there* 
of convicted before any court of the United 
States haying jurisdiction thereof, shall be pun- 
ished by a fine not exceeding two thousand 
dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding 
two years. 

Sec. 3. That if any person shall be prose- 
cuted, under this Act, for the writing or pub- 
lishing any libel, as aforesaid, it shall be law- 
ful for the defendant, upon the trial of the 
cause, to give in evidence, in his defence, the 
truth of the matter contained in the publication 
charged as a libel ; and the jury who shall try 
the cause, shall have a right to determine the 
law and the fact, under the direction of the 
court, as in other cases. 

Sec 4. That this Act shall continue and be 
in force until the third day of March, one thou- 
sand eight hundred and one, and no longer : 
Provided, That the expiration of the Act shall 
not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punish- 
ment of any offence against the law during the 
time it shall be in force. 

[Approved: July 14, ( 1798.} 

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF I79& 

[the original draught prepared by 
thomas jefferson.] 

The following Resolutions passed the House 
of Representatives of Kentucky, November 
IQth, 1798. On the passage of the 1st 
Resolution, one dissentient; 2rf, 3d, 4th> 
5th, 6th, 1th, 8th, two dissentients; 9th, 
three dissentients. 

I. Resolved, That the' several States com- 
posing the United States of America, are not 



AND JOURNAL OP TOiXTtCAL ECONOMY. 



IB 



united cm the principle of unlimited submission 
to their General Government ; but that, by com- 
pact, under the style and title of a Constitution 
for the United States, and of amendments there- 
to, they constituted a General Government for 
special purposes, delegated to that Government 
certain definite powers, reserving, each State 
to itself, the residuary mass of right to their 
own self-government; and that, whensoever 
the General Government assumes undelegated 
powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and 
of no force ; that to this compact each State 
acceded as a State, and as an integral party ; 
that this Government, created by this compact, 
Was not made the exclusive or final judge of the 
extent of the powers delegated to itself; since 
that would have made its discretion, and not 
the Constitution, the measure of its powers ; 
but that, as in all other cases of compact, 
among parties having no common judge, EACH 
PARTF HAS AN EQUAL RIGHT TO 
JUDGE FOR ITSELF, AS WELL OF IN 
FRACTIONS AS OF THE MODE AND 
. MEASURE OF REDRESS. 

II. Resolved, That the Constitution of the 
United States having delegated to Congress a 
power to punish treason, counterfeiting the 
securities and current coin of the United 
States, piracies and felonies committed on the 
high seas, and offences against the laws of 
nations, and no other crimes whatever, and it 
being true, as a general principle, and one of 
die amendments to the Constitution having 
also declared that " the powers not delegated 
to the United States by the Constitution, nor 
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to 
the States respectively, or to the People," there- 
fore, also, the same Act of Congress, passed 
on the 14th day of July, 1798, and entitled 
" An Act in addition to the Act entitled an Act 
for the punishment of certain crimes against 
the United States ;" as, also, the Act passed by 
them on the 27th day of June, 1798, entitled 
** An Act to punish frauds committed on the 
Bank of the United States ;" (and all other 
their acts which assume to create, define, or 
punish crimes other than those enumerated in 
the Constitution) are altogether void and of 
no force> and that the power to create, define, 
and punish such other crimes, is reserved, and 
of right appertains solely and exclusively, to 
the respective States, each within it own ter- 
ritory. 

III. Resolved, That it is true, as a general 
principle, and is also expressly declared by 
one of the amendments to the Constitution, 
that " the powers not delegated to the United 
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by 
it to the States, are reserved to the States 
respectively, or to the People ;" and, that no 
power over the freedom of religion, freedom 



of speech, or freedom of the press, being del^ 
gated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful 
powers respecting the same did of right re- 
main, and were reserved to the States or to 
the People; that thus was manifested their 
determination to retain to themselves the right 
of judging how far the licentiousness of speech 
and of the press may be abridged without 
lessening their useful freedom, and how far 
those abuses which cannot be separated from 
their use, should be tolerated, rather than the 
use be destroyed ; and thus, also, they guarded 
against all abridgment, by the United States, 
of the freedom of religious principles and ex- 
ercises, and retained to themselves the right 
of protecting the same, as this, stated by a law 
passed on the general demand of its citizens, 
had already protected them from all human 
restraint or interference: and, that, in addition 
to this general principle and express declara- 
tion, another and more special provision has 
been made by one of the amendments to the 
Constitution, which expressly declares that 
" Congress shall make no laws respecting an 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the 
free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom 
of speech, or of the press," thereby guarding, 
in the same sentence, and under the same 
words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and 
of the press, insomuch, that whatever violates 
either, throws down the sanctuary which 
covers the others; and that libels, falsehood, 
and defamation, equally with heresy and false 
religion, are withheld from the cognizance of 
Federal tribunals. That therefore the Act 
of the Congress of the United States, passed on 
the 14th of July, 1798, entitled "An Act in 
addition to the Act entitled an Act for the 
punishment of certain crimes against the Uni- 
ted States," which does abridge the freedom of 
the press, is not law, but is altogether void 
and of no effect. 

IV. Resolved, That alien friends are under 
the jurisdiction and protection of the laws of 
the State wherein they are ^ that no power over 
them has been delegated to the United States, 
nor prohibited to the individual States distinct 
from their power over citizens ; and it being 
true, as a general principle, and one of the 
amendments to the Constitution having also 
declared that "the powers not delegated to 
the United States by the Constitution, nor pro- 
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the People,*' the Act 
of the Congress of the United States, passed 
the 22d day of June, 1798, entitled " An Act' 
concerning Aliens," which assumes power 
over alien friends, not delegated by the Consti- 
tution, is not law, but is altogether void and. 

Of NO FORCE. 



a* 



THE EXAMINER, 



V. Resvhtd, That in addition to the gene- 
ral principle, as well as the express declaration 
that powers not delegated are reserved, ano- 
ther and more special provision inserted in the 
Constitution, from abundant caution, has de- 
clared that " the migration or importation of 
such persons as any of the States now existing 
shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohi- 
bited by the Congress prior to the year 1808." 
That this Commonwealth does admit the mi- 
gration of alien friends described as the sub- 
ject of the said Act concerning Aliens ; that a 
provision against prohibiting their migration, 
is a provision against all acts equivalent there- 
to, or it would be nugatory ; that to remove 
them, when migrated, is equivalent to a pro- 
hibition of their migration, and is, therefore, 
contrary to the said provision of the Constitu 
tion, and void. 

VI. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a 
person under the protection of the. laws of this 
Commonwealth, on his failure to obey the sim- 
ple order of the President to depart out of the 
United States, as is undertaken by the said 
Act, entitled " An Act concerning Aliens," is 
contrary to the Constitution, one amendment 
in which has provided that " no person shall 
be deprived of liberty without due process of 
law ; and that another having provided that, 
"in all criminal prosecutions, the accused 
shall enjoy the right to a public trial, by an 
impartial jury, to be informed as to the nature 
and cause of the accusation, to be confronted 
with the witnesses against him, to have com- 
pulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his 
favor, and to have assistance of counsel for his 
defence," the same Act undertaking to autho- 
rize the President to remove a person out of 
the United States who is under the protection 
of the law, on his own suspicion, without jury, 
without public trial, without confrontation of 
the witnesses against him, without having wit- 
nesses in his favor, without defence, without 
counsel, is contrary to these provisions, also, of 
the Constitution — is, therefore, not law, but 
utterly void and op wo force. 

That transferring the power of judging any 
person who is under thte protection of the laws, 
from the courts to the President of the United 
States, as is undertaken by the same Act con- 
cerning Aliens, is against the Article of the 
Constitution which provides that " the Judicial 
power of the United States shall be vested in 
the courts, the judges of which shall hold their 
office during good behaviour," and that the 
said Act is void for that reason also ; and it is 
further to be noted, that this transfer of judi- 
ciary power is to that magistrate of the Gene- 
ral Government who already possesses all the 
Executive, and a qualified negative in all the 
powers. 



VII* Resohed, That the construction ap- 
plied by the General Government (as is evin- 
cod by sundry of their proceedings) to those 
parts of the Constitution of the United States 
which delegate to Congress power to lay and 
collect taxes, duties, imposts, excises, to pay 
the debts and provide for the common defence 
and general welfare of the United States, and 
to make all laws which shall be necessary and 
proper for carrying into execution the powers 
vested by the Constitution in the Government 
of the United States, or any department there- 
of, goes to the destruction of all the limits 
prescribed to their power by the Constitution : 
That words meant by that instrument to be 
subsidiary only to the execution of the limited 
powers, ought not to be so construed as them- 
selves to give unlimited powers, nor a part so 
to be taken as to destroy the whole residue of 
the instrument : That the proceedings of the 
General Government, under color of those ar- 
ticles, will be a fit and necessary subject for re- 
visal and correction at a time of greater tran- 
quillity, while those specified in the preceding % 
resolutions call for immediate redress. 

VIII. Resolved, That the preceding resolu- 
tions be transmitted to the Senators and Repre- 
sentatives in Congress from this Commonwealth, 
who are enjoined to present the same to their 
respective Houses, and to use their best endea- 
vors to procure, at the next session of Congress, 
a repeal of the aforesaid unconstitutional and 
obnoxious Acts. 

IX. Resolved, lastly, That the Governor of 
this Commonwealth be, and is hereby, autho- 
rized and requested to communicate the pre- 
ceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the 
several States, to assure them that this Com- 
monwealth considers union for special national 
purposes, and particularly for those specified 
in their late federal compact, to be friendly to 
the peace, happiness, and prosperity, of all the 
States ; that, faithful to that compact, accord- 
ing to the plain intent and meaning in which 
it was 'understood and acceded to by the 
several parties, it is sincerely anxious for its 
preservation ; that it does also believe, that, 
to take from the States all the powers of sehv 
government, and transfer them to a general 
and consolidated government, without regard 
to the special delegations and reservations 
solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for 
the peace, happiness, or prosperity, of these 
States ; and that, therefore, this Commonwealth 
is determined, as it doubts not its co-States 
are, tamely to submit to undelegated, and con- 
sequently unlimited powers, in no man or body 
of men on earth: that, if the Acts before spe- 
cified should stand, these conclusions would 
flow from them — that the General Government 
may place any act they think proper on the 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



21 



Bat of crimes, and punish it themselves 
ther enumerated or not enumerated hy the 
Constitution as cognizable by them ; that they 
may transfer its cognizance to the President 
or any other person, who may himself be the 
accuser, counsel, judge, and jury, whose sus- 
picions may be the evidence, his order the sen- 
tence, his officer the executioner, and his breast 
the sole record of the transaction ; that a very 
numerous and valuable description of the in- 
habitants of these States being by this prece- 
dent reduced as outlaws to the absolute domi- 
nion of one man, and the barriers of the Con- 
stitution thus swept from us all, no rampart 
now remains against the passions and the pow- 
ers of a majority of Congress, to protect from 
a like exportation or other grievous punish- 
ment the minority of the same body, the Le- 
gislatures, Judges, Governors, and Counsellors 
of the States, nor their other peaceable inha- 
bitants, who may venture to reclaim the con. 
stitutional rights and liberties of the States and 
People, or who, for other causes, good or 
bad, may be obnoxious to the view, or marked 
by the suspicions of the President, or to be 
thought dangerous to his or their elections, or 
other interests, public or personal; that the 
friendless Alien has been selected as the sa 
fest subject of a first experiment ; but the citi- 
zen will soon follow, or, rather, has already 
followed, for already has a Sedition Act mark- 
ed him as a prey: that these and successive 
acts of the same character, unless arrested on 
the threshold, may tend to drive these States 
into revolution and blood, and will furnish 
new calumnies against Republican Govern- 
ments, and a new pretexts for those who wish 
it to be believed that man cannot be governed 
but by a rod of iron ; that it would be a dan- 
gerous delusion were a confidence in the men 
of our choice to silence our fears for the safe- 
ty of our rights; that confidence is every 
where the parent of despotism — free govern- 
ment is founded in jealousy, and not in con- 
fidence: it is jealousy, and not confidence, 
which prescribes limited constitutions to bind 
down those whom we are obliged to trust 
with power; that our Constitution has, ac- 
cordingly, fixed the limits to which, and no 
farther, our confidence may go: and let the 
honest advocate of confidence read the Alien 
and Sedition Acts, and say if the Constitution 
has not been wise in fixing limits to the Go- 
vernment it created, and whether we should 
be wise in destroying those limits? Let him 
say what the Government is, if it be not a ty- 
ranny, which the men of our choice have con- 
ferred on the President, and the President of 
our choice has assented to and accepted, over 
the friendly strangers to whom the mild spirit 
of our country and its laws had pledged hos- 



whe~|pitality 



and protection ; that the men of our 
choice have more respected the bare suspi- 
cions of the President than the solid rights of 
innocence, the claims of justification, the sa- 
cred force of truth, and the forms and sub- 
stance of law and justice. In questions of 
power, then, let no more be feaid of confi- 
dence in man, but bind him down from mis- 
chief, by the chains of the Constitution. That 
this Commonwealth dobs therefore call 
on rrs co-States for an expression of their 
sentiments on the Acts concerning Aliens and 
for the punishment of certain crimes herein 
before specified — plainly declaring whether 
these Acts are or are not authorized by the 
Federal Compact. And it doubts not thai 
their sense will bt so announced as to prove 
their attachment to limited government, whe- 
ther general or particular, and that the rights 
and liberties of their co-States will be exposed 
to no dangers by remaining embarked on a 
common bottom with their own ; but they will 
concur with this Commonwealth in considering 
the said Acts as so palpably against the Con* 
stitution as to amount to an undisguised de- 
claration that the compact is not meant to be 
the measure of the powers of the General Go- 
vernment, but that it will proceed in the exer- 
cise, over these States, of all powers whatso- 
ever. That they wiU view this as seizing the 
rights of the States, and consolidating them 
in the hands of the General Government, with- 
a power assumed to bind the States, (not mere- 
ly in cases made federal, but in all cases what- 
soever,) by laws made, not with their consent, 
but by others, against their consent ; that this 
would be to surrender the form of government 
we have chosen, and Hve under one deriving its 
powers from its own will, and not from our au- 
thority ; and that the co-States, recurring to 
their natural rights in cases not made federal, 
will concur in declaring these Acts void and 
of no force, and will each unite with this 
Commonwealth in requesting their repeal at 
the next session of Congress. 

Edmund Bullock, S. H. R. 

John Campbell, S. S. P. T. 

Passed the House of Representative, No- 
vember 10, 1798. 

Attest : Thos. Todd, C. H. R. 

In Senate, November 13, 1798— Unani- 
mously concurred in. 

Attest : B. Thurston, C. S. 

Approved, November 19th, 1798. 
Jambs Garrard, 

.Governor of Kentucky 
By the Governor: 

Harry Toulmin, 
Secretary of State. 



92 



THE EXAMINER, 



VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS OF 1798. 

[DRAWN UP BY JAMES MADISON.] 

IN THE VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES. 
Friday, December 21, 1798. 

Resolved, That the General Assembly of 
Virginia dothfinequivocally express a firm re- 
solution to maintain and defend the Constitution 
of the United States, and the Constitution of 
this State, against every aggression, either fo- 
reign or domestic ; and that they will support 
the Government of the United States in all 
measures warranted by the former. 

That this Assembly most solemnly declares 
a warm attachment to the Union of the States, 
to maintain which, it pledges its powers; and 
that, for this end, it is their duty to watch 
over and oppose every infraction of those prin- 
ciples which constitute the only basis of that 
Union — because a faithful observance of them 
can alone secure its existence and the public 
happiness. 

That this Assembly doth explicitly and pe- 
remptorily declare, that it views the powers 
of the Federal Government as resulting 
from the Compact to which the States 
are parties, as limited by the plain sense 
and intention of the instrument consti- 
tuting that compact, as no farther valid 
than they are authorized by the grants 
enumerated in that compact j and that in 
case of a deliberate, palpable, and dan- 
gerous exercise of other powers not 
granted by the said compact, the states 
who are parties thereto havb the right, 
and are in duty bound, to interpose, for 
arresting the progress of the evil, and 
for maintaining, within their respective 
limits, the authorities, rights, and liber- 
ties appertaining to them. 

That the General Assembly doth also ex- 
press its deep regret that a spirit has, in sun- 
dry instances, been manifested, by the Fede- 
ral Government, to enlarge its powers, by for- 
ced constructions of the constitutional char- 
ter which defines them ; and that indications 
have appeared of a design to expound certain 
general phrases, (which, having been copied 
from the very limited grant of powers in the 
former Articles of Confederation, were the less 
liable to be misconstrued,) so as to destroy 
the meaning and effect of the particular enu- 
meration which necessarily explains and li- 
mits the general phrases, and so as to conso- 
lidate the States, by degrees, into one 
SovereigntYt-thr obvious tendency and 
inevitable ke8ult of which would be to 
transform the present republican sys- 
TEM of the United States into an abso- 
lute, or, at best, a mixed Monarchy. 

That the General Assembly doth particu- 



larly protest against the palpable and alarming 
infractions of the Constitution, in the two late 
cases of the* ' Alien and Sedition Acts,' passed 
at the last session of Congress ; the first of 
which exercises a power no where delegated to 
the Federal Government, and which, by uniting 
Legislative and Judicial powers to those of 
Executive, subverts the general principles of 
free government, as well as the particular or- 
ganization and positive provisions of the Fede- 
ral Constitution ; and the other of which Acts 
exercises, in like manner, a power not dele- 
gated by the Constitution, but, on the contrary, 
expressly and positively forbidden by one of 
the amendments thereto^-a power which, more 
than any other, ought to produce universal 
alarm, because it is levelled against the right 
of freely examining public characters and 
measures, and of free communication among 
the people, thereon, which has ever been justly 
deemed the only effectual guardian of every 
other right. 

That this State having, by its Convention 
which ..ratified the Federal Constitution, ex- 
pressly declared, that, among other essential 
rights, " the liberty of conscience and of the 
press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrain- 
ed, or modified, by any authority of the Uni- 
ted States ;" and, from its extreme anxiety to 
guard these rights from every possible attack 
of sophistry and ambition, having, with other 
States, recommended an amendment for that 
purpose — which amendment was, in due time, 
annexed to the Constitution — it would mark a 
reproachful inconsistency, and criminal dege- 
neracy, if an indifference were now shown to 
the most palpable violation of one of the rights 
thus declared and secured ; and to the esta* 
blishment of a precedent which may be fatal to 
the other. 

That the good People of this Common- 
wealth, having ever felt, and continuing to 
feel, the most sincere affection for their bre- 
thren of the other States, the truest anxiety 
for establishing and perpetuating the union of 
all, and the most scrupulous fidelity to that 
Constitution, which is the pledge of mutual 
friendship, and the instrument of mutual hap* 
piness — the General Assembly doth solemnly 
appeal to the like dispositions in the other 
States, in confidence that they will concur 
with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it 
does hereby declare, that the Acta aforesaid 
are unconstitutional, and that the necessa- 
ry and proper measures will be taken by each 
for co-operating with this State in maintaining 
unimpaired the authorities, rights, and liberties, 
reserved to the States respectively, or tothd 
People. 

That the Governor be desired to transmit 
a copy of the foregoing resolutions to the E*« 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL, ECONOMY. 



U 



ecutive authority of each of the other States, 
with a request dial the same may be communi- 
cated to the Legislature thereof; and that a 
copy be furnished to each of the Senators and 
Representatives representing this State in the 
Congress of the United States. 

Attest: JOHN STEWART. 

1798, December 24th— Agreed to by the 
Senate. H. BROOKE. 

A true copy from the original deposited in 
the office of the General Assembly. 

JOHN STEWART, 

Keeper of Rolls. 

ANSWERS 

OF THE 

SEVERAL STATE LEGISLATURES * 

TO THE £ 

Resolutions of Kentucky and Virginia. 

STATE OplDELAWAHE. 
In the House of Representatives, Feb. 1, 1799. 
Resolved, By the Senate and House of Re- 
presentatives of the State of Delaware, in Ge- 
neral Assembly met, That they consider the 
Resolutions of the State of Virginia as a very 
unjustifiable interference with the General Go- 
vernment and constituted authorities of the Uni< 
ted States, and of dangerous tendency, and there- 
fore not fit subject for the further consideration 
of the General Assembly. 

Isaac Davis, 

Speaker of the Senate. 
Stephen Lewis, 
Speaker of the House of Rep's. 
Test : John Fisher, C. S. 

John Caldwell, C. H. R. 

STATE OF RHODE~ISLAND AND PROVI- 
DENCE PLANTATIONS. 

In General Assembly, February A. D. 1799. 
Certain Resolutions of the Legislature of Vir- 
ginia, passed on 21st of December last, being 
communicated to this Assembly : 

1. Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Le< 
gislature, the second section of third article of 
die Constitution of the United States, in these 
words, to wit : The Judicial power shall extend 
to all cases arising under the laws of the Uni- 
ted States, vests in the Federal Courts exclu- 
sively, and in the Supreme Court of the United 
States ultimately, the authority of deciding on 
the constitutionality of any Act or Law of the 
Congress of the United States. 

2. Resohed, That for any State Legislature 
to assume that authority, would be, 

1st. Blending together legislative and judi 
cial powers. 



* No answers were given by New Jersey, Penn- 
•nrhraoia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, 
Georgia. 



2d. Hazarding an interruption of the peace 
of the States, by civil discord, in case of a di- 
versity of opinions among the State Legisla- 
tures ; eaoh State having, in that case, no resort I 
for vindicating its own opinions, but to the! 
strength of its own arm. 

3d. Submitting most important questions of 
law to less competent tribunals : nnd 

4th. An infraction of the Constitution of the 
United States, expressed in plain terms. 

3. Resolved, That although for the above 
reasons, this Legislature, in their public capa- 
city, do not feel themselves authorized to con- 
sider and decide on the constitutionality of the 
Sedition and Alien Laws (so called :) yet they 
are called upon, by the exigency of this occa- 
sion, to declare, that, in their private opinions, 
these laws are within the powers delegated to 
Congress, and promotive of the welfare of the 
United States. 

4. Resolved, That the Governor communi- 
cate these Resolutions to the Supreme Execu- 
tive of the State of Virginia, and at the same 
time express to him that this Legislature can- 
not contemplate, without extreme concern and 
regret, the many evil and fatal consequences 
which may flow from the very unwarrantable 
Resolutions aforesaid, of the Legislature of 
Virginia, passed on the twenty-first day of De- 
cember last. 

A true copy, Samuel Eddy, Sec. 

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS. 
In Senate, February 9, 1799. 

The Legislature of Massachusetts having 
taken into serious consideration the Resolu- 
tions of the State of Virginia, passed the 21st 
day of December last, and communicated by 
his Excellency the Governor, relative to cer- 
tain supposed infractions of the Constitution 
of the United States, by the Government 
thereof, and being convinced that the Federal 
Constitution is calculated to promote the happi- 
ness, prosperity, and safety, of the people of 
these United States, and to maintain that union 
of the several States, so essential to the welfare 
of the whole ; and being bound by solemn oath 
to support and defend that Constitution, feel it 
unnecessary to make any professions of their 
attachment to it, or of their firm determination 
to support it against every aggression, foreign 
or domestic 

But they deem it their duty solemnly to de- 
clare, that, while they hold sacred the principle 
that consent of the People is the only pure 
source of just and legitimate power, they can- 
not admit the right of the State Legislatures to 
denounce die administration of that Govern- 
ment to which the People themselves, by a 
solemn compact, have exclusively committed 



94 



THE EXAMINER 



their National concerns : That, although a li- 
beral and enlightened vigilance among the 
People is always to be cherished, yet an un- 
reasonable jealousy of the men of their choice, 
and a recurrence to measures of extremity, 
upon groundless or trivial pretexts, have a 
strong tendency to destroy all rational liberty 
at home, and to deprive the United States of 
the most essential advantages in their relations 
abroad: That this Legislature are persuaded 
that the decision of all cases in law and equity, 
arising under the Constitution of the United 
States, and the construction of all laws made 
in pursuance thereof, are exclusively vested by 
the People in the judicial courts of the United 
States. 

That the People-, in that solemn compact 
which is declared to be the supreme law of the 

Iland, have not constituted the State Legisla- 
tures the judges of the acts or measures of the 
Federal Government, but have confided to them 
the power of proposing such amendments of the 
Constitution as shall appear to them necessary 
to the interests, or conformable to the wishes, 
of the people whom they represent 

That, by this construction of the Constitu- 
tion, an amicable and dispassionate remedy is 
pointed out for any evil which experience may 
prove to exist, and the peace and prosperity of 
the United States may be preserved without in- 
terruption. 

But, should the respectable State of Virginia 
persist in the assumption of the right to declare 
the acts of the National Government uncon- 

Istitutional, and should she oppose successfully 
her force and will to those of the nation, the 
Constitution would be reduced to a mere cy- 
pher, to the form and pageantry of authority, 
without the energy of power. Every act of the 
Federal Government, which thwarted the views 
or checked the ambitious projects of a particu- 
lar State, or of its leading and influential mem- 
bers, would be the object of opposition and of 
remonstrance ; while the People, convulsed and 
confused by the conflict between the two hostile 
jurisdictions, enjoying the protection of neither, 
would be wearied into a submission to some 
bold leader, who would establish himself on the 
ruins of both. 

The Legislature of Massachusetts, although 
they do not themselves claim the right, nor 
admit the authority, of any of the State Go- 
vernments, to decide upon the constitution- 
ality of the Acts of the Federal Government, 
still, least their silence should be construed 
into disapprobation, or at best into a doubt of 
the constitutionality, of the acts referred to 
by the State of Virginia ; and as the Gene- 
ral Assembly of Virginia has called for an 
expression of their sentiments, do explicitly 
declare, that they consider the Acts of Con- 



gress, commonly called " the Alien and Sedi- 
tion Acts," not only constitutional, but expedi- 
ent and necessary : That the former Act re- 
spects a description of persons whose rights 
were not particularly contemplated in the Con- 
stitution of the United States, who are entitled 
only to a temporary protection, while they yield 
a temporary allegiance; a protection which 
ought to be withdrawn whenever they become 
" dangerous to the public safety, 9 ' or are found 
guilty of " treasonable machination" against 
the Government : That Congress, having been 
especially entrusted by the people with the 
general defence of the nation, had not only the 
right, but were bound, to protect it against in- 
ternal as well as external foes : That the United 
States, at the time of passing the Act concern- 
ing Aliens, were threatened with actual inva- 
sion, had been driven by the unjust and ambi- 
tious conduct of the French Government into 
warlike preparations, expensive and burthen- 
some, and had then, within the bosom of .the 
country, thousands of aliens, who, we doubt 
not, were ready to co-operate in any external 
attack. # 

It cannot be seriously believed that the Uni- 
ted States should have waited till the poignard 
had in fact been plunged. The removal of 
aliens is the usual preliminary of hostility, and 
is justified by the invariable usages of nations. 
Actual hostility had unhappily long been expe- 
rienced, and a formal declaration of it the Go- 
vernment had reason daily to expect. The 
law, therefore, was just and salutary, and no 
officer could with so much propriety be entrust- 
ed with the execution of it, as the one in whom 
the Constitution has reposed the executive pow- 
er of the United States. 

The Sedition Act, so called, is, in the opi- 
nion of this Legislature, equally defensible. 
The General Assembly of Virginia, in their 
resolve under consideration, observe, that when 
that State, by its Convention, ratified the Fede- 
ral Constitution, it expressly declared "That 
among other essential rights, the liberty of con- 
science and of the press cannot be cancelled, 
abridged, restrained, or modified, by any au- 
thority of the United States," and from its ex- 
treme anxiety to guard these rights from every 
possible attack of sophistry or ambition, with 
other States, recommended an amendment for 
that purpose: which amendment was, in due 
time, annexed to the Constitution ; but they did 
not surely expect that the proceedings of their 
State Convention were to explain the amend- 
ment adopted by the Union. The words of that 
amendment, on this subject, are, "Congress 
shall make no law abridging the freedom of 
speech or of the press." 

The Act complained of is no abridgment of 
the freedom of either. The genuine liberty of 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



25 



speech and the press, is the liberty to utter and 
publish the truth; but the constitutional right 
of the citizen to utter and publish the truth, is 
not to be confounded with the licentiousness in 
speaking and writing that is only employed in 
propagating' falsehood and slander. This free- 
dom of the press has been explicitly secured by 
most, if not all, the State Constitutions ; and of 
this provision there has been generally but one 
construction among enlightened men : that it is 
a security for the rational use and not the abuse 
of the press ; of which the courts of law, the 
juries, and people, will judge ; this right is not 
infringed, but confirmed and established, by the 
late Act of Congress. 

By the Constitution, the legislative, execu- 
tive and judicial departments of Government 
are ordained and established ; and general enu- 
merated powers vested in them respectively, 
including those which are prohibited to the 
several States. Certain powers are granted, in 
general terms, by the people, to their General 
Government, for the purposes of their safety 
and protection*. The Government is not only 
empowered, but it is made their duty, to repel 
invasions and suppress insurrections ; to guar- 
antee to the several States a republican form 
of government ; to protect each State, against 
invasion, and, when applied to, against domes- 
tic violence ; to hear and decide all cases, in 
law and equity, arising under the Constitution, 
and under any treaty or law made in pursu- 
ance thereof; and all cases of admiralty and 
maritime jurisdiction, and relating to the law 
of nations. Whenever, therefore, it becomes 
necessary to effect any of the objects desig- 
nated, it is perfectly consonant to all just rules 
of construction to infer that the usual means 
and powers necessary to the attainment of 
that object are also granted : But the Consti 
tution has left no occasion to resort to impli 
cation for these powers ; it has made an ex- 
press grant of them, in the 8th section of the 
first article, which ordains " That Congress 
shall have power to make all laws which shall 
be necessary and proper for carrying into exe- 
cution the foregoing powers, and all other pow- 
ers vested by the Constitution in the Government 
of the United States or in any department or 
officer thereof." 

This Constitution has established a Supreme 
Court of the United States, but has made no 
provision for its protection, even against such 
improper conduct, in its presence, as might dis- 
turb its proceedings, unless expressed in the 
section before recited. But as no statute has 
been passed on this subject, this protection is, 
and has been for nine years past, uniformly 
found in the application of the principles and 
usages of the common law. The same protec- 
tion may unquestionably be afforded by a sta 



tute passed in virtue of the before mentioned 
section, as necessary and proper for carrying 
into execution the powers vested in that depart- 
ment. A construction of the different parts of 
the Constitution, perfectly just and fair, will, on 
analogous principles, extend protection and se- 
curity, against the offences in question, to the 
other departments of Government, in discharge 
of their respective trusts. 

The President of the United States is bound, 
by his oath, " to preserve, protect, and defend, 
the Constitution," and it is expressly made his 
duty " to take care that the laws be faithfully 
executed ;" but this would be impracticable by 
any created being, if there could be no legal re- 
straint of those scandalous misrepresentations 
of his measures and motives, which directly 
tend to rob him of the public confidence. And 
equally impotent would be every other public 
officer, if thus left to the mercy of the seditious. 

It is holden to be a truth most clear, that 
the important trusts before enumerated can- 
not be discharged by the government to which 
they are committed, without the power to re- 
strain seditious practices and unlawful combi- 
nations against itself, and to protect the offi- 
cers thereof from abusive misrepresentations. 
Had the Constitution withheld this power, it 
would have made the government responsible 
for the effects, without any control over the 
causes which naturally produce them, and 
would have essentially failed of answering the 
great ends for which the People of the United 
States declare, in the first clause of that instru- 
ment, that they establish the same, viz : " To 
form a more perfect union, establish justice, 
insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the 
common defence, promote the general welfare, 
and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves 
and posterity." 

Seditious practices and unlawful combina- 
tions against the Federal Government, or any 
officer thereof, in the performance of his duty, 
as well as licentiousness of speech and of the 
press, were punishable on the principles of 
common law in the courts of the United States, 
before the Act in question was passed. This 
Act then is an amelioration of that law in favor 
of the party accused, as it mitigates the punish- 
ment which that authorizes, and admits of any 
investigation of public men and measures 
which is regulated by truth. It is not in- 
tended to protect men in office, only as they 
are agents of the people. Its object is to af- 
ford legal security to public offices and trusts 
created for the safety and happiness of the 
people, and therefore the security derived from 
it is for the benefit of the people, and is their 
right. 

This construction of the Constitution and of 
the existing law of the land, as well as the Act 



26 



THE EXAMINER, 



complained of, the Legislature of Massachu- 
setts most deliberately and firmly believe, re- 
sults from a just and full view of the several 
parts of the Constitution ; and they consider that 
Act to be wise and necessary, as an audacious 
and unprincipled spirit of falsehood and abuse 
had been too long unremittingly exerted for the 
purpose of perverting public opinion, and threat 
ened to undermine and destroy the whole fabric 
of government. 

The Legislature further declare, that in the 
foregoing sentiments they have expressed the 
general opinion of their constituents, who have 
not only acquiesced, without complaint, in 
those particular measures of the Federal Go- 
vernment, but have given their explicit appro- 
bation, by re-electing those men who voted 
for the adoption of them. Nor is it appre 
hended that the citizens of this State will be 
accused of supineness or of an indifference to 
their constitutional rights ; for, while on the 
one hand they* regard with due vigilance the 
conduct of the Government ; on the other, their 
freedom, safety, and happiness, require that 
they should defend that Government and its 
constitutional measures against the open or in 
sidious attacks of any foe, whether foreign or 
domestic. 

And, lastly, that the Legislature of Massa 
chusetts feel a strong conviction that the seve- 
ral United States are connected by a common 
interest, which ought to render their union in- 
dissoluble, and that this State will always co- 
I operate with its confederate . States in rendering 
that union productive of mutuaT security, free- 
dom, and happiness. 

Samuel Philips, President* 

Sent down for concurrence. 

In the House of Representatives, February 
13, 1790. Read and concurred. 

Edward H. Robbins, Speaker. 
A true copy. — Attest, John Avery, See. 

STATE OF NEW YORK. 
In Senate, March 5, 1799. 
Whereas the People of the United States 
have established for themselves a free and in- 
dependent National Government : And where- 
as it is essential to the existence of every go- 
vernment, that it have authority to defend and 
preserve its constitutional powers inviojate, in- 
asmuch as every infringement thereof tends 
to its subversion : And whereas the judicial 
power extends expressly to all cases of law 
and equity arising under the Constitution and 
the laws of the United States, whereby the 
interference of the Legislatures of the parti- 
cular States in those cases is manifestly ex- 
cluded: And whereas our peace, prosperity, 
and happiness, eminently depend on the pre- 



servation of the Union, in order to which, a 
reasonable confidence in the constituted au- 
thorities and chosen representatives of the 
people is indispensable : And whereas every 
measure, calculated to weaken that confidence, 
has a tendency to destroy the usefulness of 
our public functionaries, and to excite jea- 
lousies equally hostile to rational liberty and 
the principles of a good republican govern- 
ment : And whereas tne Senate, not perceiving 
that the rights of the particular States have 
been violated, nor any unconstitutional powers 
assumed by the General Government, cannot 
forbear to express the anxiety and regret with 
which they observe the inflammatory and per- 
nicious sentiments and doctrines which are 
contained in the Resolutions of the Legisla- 
tures of Virginia and Kentucky — sentiments 
and doctrines no less repugnant to the Con-' 
stitution of the United States, and the princi- 
ples of their union, than destructive to tne Fe- 
deral Government, and unjust to those whom 
the people have elected to administer it : where- 
fore, 

Resolved, That, while the Senate feel them- 
selves constrained to bear unequivocal testimo- 
ny against such sentiments and doctrines, they 
deem it a duty no less indispensable, explicitly 
to declare their incompetency, as a branch of 
the Legislature of this State, to supervise the 
acts of the General Government 

Resolved, That his Excellency the Go\ernor 
be, and he is hereby, requested to transmit a 
copy of the foregoing resolution to the Execu- 
tives of the States of Virginia and Kentucky, 
to the end that the same may be communicated 
to the Legislatures thereof. 
A true copy, 

Abm. B. Bauckee, Cleric. 

STATE OF CONNECTICUT 
At a General Assembly of the State of Con- 
necticut, holden at Hartford in the said State, 
on the second Thursday of May, Anno Do- 
mini 1799, his Excellency the Governor ha- 
ving communicated to this Assembly sundry 
Resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, 
adopted in December 1798, which relate to 
th/e measures of the General Government, and 
the said Resolutions having been considered: 
it is 

Resolved, That this Assembly views with 
deep regret and explicitly disavows, the princi- 
ples contained in the aforesaid Resolutions; 
and particularly the opposition to the " Alien 
and Sedition Acts" — Acts which the Constitu- 
tion authorized : which the exigency of the 
country rendered necessary: which the con- 
stituted authorities have enacted, and which 
merit the entire approbation of this Assembly* 
They, therefore, decidedly refuse to concur 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



37 



with the Legislature of Virginia, in promoting 
any of the objects attempted in the aforesaid 
Resolutions. 

And U is further 

Resolved, That his Excellency the Governor 
be requested to transmit a copy of the forego- 
ing resolution to the Governor of Virginia, that 
it may be communicated to the Legislature of 
that State. 

Passed in the House of Representatives unan- 
imously. 

Attest, Jobn C. Smith, Clerk. 

Concurred unanimously in the Upper House. 
Teste, Sam. Wyllys, Sec'ry. 

STATE DP NEW HAMPSHIRE. 

In the House of "Representatives, June 14, 

1799. 

The committee to take into consideration 
the Resolutions of the General Assembly of 
Virginia, dated December 21st, 1798;. also 
Certain Resolutions of the Legislature of Ken 
tucky, of the 10th November, 1798, report as 
JbUows: 

The Legislature of New Hampshire having 
taken into consideration certain Resolutions of 
the General Ajssemhly of Virginia, dated De- 
cember 21* 1798 ; also Certain Resolutions of 
the Legislature of Kentucky, of the 10th of 
November* 1798: 
. Rtsohcd, That the Legislature of New 
^Hampshire unequivocally express a firm reso- 
lution to maintain and defend the Constitution 
of the United States, and the Constitution of this 
Slate, dgautist every aggression, either foreign 
or domestic, and that they will support the Go- 
vernment of the United States in all measures 
warranted by the former. 

That tb$ State Legislatures are not the 

(proper tribunals to determine the constitution- 
ality of. the laws of the General Government — 
that the duty of such decision is properly 
and exclusively confined to the judicial depart- 
ment* . 

That if thte Legislature of New Hampshire, 
for mere speculative purposes, were to express 
riri opinion on the Acts of the General Govern 
ment) commonly called the " Ahen and Sedi 
tion Bills," that opinion would unreservedly be, 
that those Acts are constitutional, and, in the 
present critical situation of our country, highly 
expedient. 

That the constitutionality and expediency of 
the Acts aforesaid have been very ably advo- 
cated and clearly demonstrated by many citi- 
zens of the United States, more especially by 
the rninority of the General Assembly of Vir- 

gia. The Legislature of New Hampshire, 
, , refbre, deem it unnecessary, Dy any train 
£f arguments, to attempt further illustration of 
the propositions, the truth of which, it is confi- 



dently believed, at this day is very generally 
seen and acknowledged. 

Which report being read and considered, 
was unanimously received and accepted, one 
hundred and thirty-seven members being pre- 
sent. 

Sent up for concurrence. 

John Prentice, Speaker. 
In Senate, same day, read and concurred 
unanimously. 

Amos Shepard, President* 
Approved, June 15th, 1799. 

* J. T. Gilman, Governor. 
A true copy. — Attest, 

Joseph Pearson, Secretary. 

STATE OFVERMONT. 

In the House of Representatives, October 
SOth, A.D. 1799. 

The House proceeded to take under their con- 
sideration the Resolutions of the General As- 
sembly of Virginia, relative to certain measures 
of the General Government, transmitted to the 
Legislature of this State for their consideration : 
Whereupon, 

Resolved, That the General Assembly of the 
State of Vermont do highly disapprove of the 
resolutions of the General Assembly of Virgi-i 
nia, 4s being unconstitutional in their nature,! 
and dangerous in their tendency. It belongs V 
not to Srcate Legislatures to decide on the con-f 
stitutionality of laws made by the General GoJ 
vernment : this power being exclusively vested 
in the judiciary courts of the Union : That his 
Excellency the Governor be requested to trans- 
mit a copy of this resolution to the Executive 
of Virginia, to be communicated to the Gene- 
ral Assembly of that State : And that the same 
be sent to the Governor and Council for their 
concurrence. 

Samuel C. Crafts, Clerk. 

In Council, October 30, 1799: Read and 
concurred unanimously. 

Richard Whitney, Secretary. 

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF 1799. 
In the House of Representatives, 
Thursday, November 14**, 1799. 
The House, according to the standing order 
of the day, resolved itself into a Committee of 
the Whole House, on the state of the Common- 
wealth, Mr. Desha in the chair ; and, after some 
time spent therein, the Speaker resumed the 
chair, and Mr. Desha reported that the commit- 
tee had taken under consideration sundry reso- 
lutions passed by several State Legislatures, on 
the subject of the Alien and Sedition Laws, 
and had come to a resolution thereupon, which 
he delivered in at the clerk's table, where it 
was read, and unanimously agreed to by the 
House, as follows : • 



28 



THE EXAMINER, 



The representatives of the good People of 
this Commonwealth, in General Assembly 
convened, having maturely considered the an- 
swers of sundry States in the Union to their 
resolutions passed the last session, respecting 
certain unconstitutional laws of Congress, com- 
monly called the Alien and Sedition Laws, 
would be faithless, indeed, to themselves, and 
to those they represent, were they silently to 
acquiesce in the principles and doctrines at- 
tempted to be maintained in all those answers, 
that of Virginia only excepted.. To again en- 
ter the field of argument, and attempt more 
fully or forcibly to expose the unconstitution- 
ality of those obnoxious laws, would, it is ap- 
prehended, be as unnecessary as unavailing. 
We cannot, however, but lament, that, in the 
discussion of those interesting subjects, by 
sundry of the Legislatures of our sister States, 
unfounded suggestions and uncandid insinua- 
tions, derogatory to the true character and 
principles of this Commonwealth, have been 
substituted in place of fair reasoning and 
sound argument. Our opinions of these alarm- 
ing measures of the General Government, to- 
gether with our reasons for those opinions, 
were detailed with decency and with temper, 
and submitted to the discussion and judgment 
of our fellow*citizens throughout the Union. 
Whether the like decency and temper have 
been observed in the answers of most of those 
States who have denied or attempted to ob- 
viate the great truths contained in those reso- 
lutions, we have now only to submit to a can- 
did world. Faithful to the true principles of 
the Federal Union, unconscious of any designs 
to disturb the harmony of that Union, and 
anxious only to escape the fangs of despotism, 
the good People of this Commonwealth are re- 
gardless of censure or calumniation. Least, 
however, the silence of this Commonwealth 
should be construed into an acquiescence in 
the doctrines and principles advanced and at- 
tempted to be maintained by the said answers, 
or at least those of our fellow-citizens through- 
out the Union who so widely differ from us on 
those important subjects, should be deluded by 
the expectation that we shall be deterred from 
what we conceive our duty, or shrink from the 
principles contained in those resolutions : There- 
fore, 

Resolved, That this Commonwealth consi- 
ders the Federal Union, upon the terms and 
for the purposes specified in the late compact, 
as conducive \o the liberty and happiness of 
the several States : That it does now unequi- 
vocally declare its attachment to the Union, 
and to that compact, agreeably to its obvious 
and real intention, and will be among' the last 
to seefc its dissolution : That if those who ad- 
minister the General Government be permitted 



to transgress the limits fixed by that compact, 
by a total disregard to the special delegations 
of power therein contained, an annihilation of 
the State Governments, and the creation upon 
their ruins of a General Consolidated Govern- 
ment, will be the inevitable consequence: 
That the pbinciplb and construction 

CONTENDED FOE BY 8U2TDRY OF THE STATE 

Legislatures, that the General Govern- 
ment IS THE EXCLUSIVE JUDGE OF THE EX- 
TENT OF THE POWERS DELEGATED TO IT, 
STOP NOTHING SHORT OF DESPOTISM— 
SINCE THE DISCRETION OF TH08E WHO AD- 
MINISTER the Government, and not the 
CONSTITUTION, would be the mea- 
sure of their powers : That the several 
States who formed that instrument, being so- 
vereign and independent, have the unques- 
tionable right to judge of the infraction ; and, 
THAT A NULLIFICATION BY THOSE 
SOVEREIGNTIES, OF ALL UNAUTHO- 
RIZED ACTS DONE UNDER COLOR 
OF THAT INSTRUMENT, IS THE 
RIGHTFUL REMEDY : That this Com- 
monwealth does, under the most deliberate re- 
consideration, declare, that the said Alien and 
Sedition Laws are, in their opinion, palpable 
violations of the said Constitution ; and, how- 
ever cheerfully it may be disposed to surrender 
its opinion to a majority of its sister States, in 
matters of ordinary or doubtful policy, yet, 
in momentous regulations like the present, 
which so vitally wound the best rights of the 
citizen, it would consider a silent acquiescence 
as highly criminal : That although this Com- 
monwealth, as a party to the Federal compact, 
will bow to the laws of the Union, yet it does 
at the same time declare, that it will not now, 
or ever hereafter, cease to oppose, in a consti- 
tutional manner, every attempt, at what quarter 
soever offered, to violate that compact And, 
finally, in order that no pretext or arguments 
may be drawn from a supposed acquiescence 
on the part of this Commonwealth in the con- 
stitutionality of those laws, and be thereby 
used as precedents for similar future violations 
of the Federal compact — this Commonwealth 
does now enter against them its SOLEMN 
PROTEST. 



Extract, &c. 



Attest, 

Tho's Todd, C. H. R. 



In Senate, Nov. 22, 1799— Read and con- 
curred in. 

Attest, B. Thurston, C & 

The answer given by Virginia to the resolu- 
tions of the several States, was in the form of 
a Report drawn up by Mr. Madison, which will 
appear in our next No. — EA 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



20 



MIL JEFFERSON THE AUTHOR OF THE 
KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS. 

From As Richmond Enquirer of March 13, 1832. 



NULLIFICATION.— AW ERROR CORRECTED. 

We have come before the public to correct an error 
into which we have betrayed them. Some of the poli- 
ticians of Sooth Carolina had maintained the opinion 
that Mr. Jefferson was not only the friend, but the fa- 
ther of the doctrine of Nullification — and their principal 
argument was, that he was the author of the Kentucky 
Resolutions of *99, as well as those of '98— and that in 
those of *99 is to be found the memorable passage that 
41 The several States who formed that instrument, being 
sovereign and independent, have the unquestionable 
right to judge of its infraction; and that a Nullification, 
bj those sovereignties, of all unauthorized acts, done 
under color of that instrument, is the rightful remedy." 

We had a great curiosity to ascertain the truth of this 
opinion. We hunted up all the facts that were withiu 
our reach ; weighed them as impartially as we could ; 
and we arrived at a different conclusion from that of 
the State Rights Politicians of South Carolina. We 
expressed our opinions in the Enquirer of the 13th of 
September last 

We have now to state our conviction THAT WE 
WERE WRONG, AND THE SOUTH CAROLI- 
NIANS WERE RIGHT, AS TO MR JEFFER- 
SON'S OPINIONS. A small MS. book has been 
found among his papers, which, with other articles, con- 
tains two copies in his own hand writing, that appear 
to have been the original of the Kentucky Resolutions. 
The first of these is blurred, and much corrected, with 



appearing as if they had used nearly all his draught at 
one session, but kept up, for a stronger blow, the reme- 
dy of Nullification, for the subsequent session. With 
the exception of this phrase, the preamble and the. rest 
of the resolution are from a different pen. This, how- 
ever, is immaterial. The doctrine is his. The measure J 
too, to which they resorted, is not as distinct and imme4 
diate as his draught puts forth. They throw themselves) 
upon a ** solemn protest" — but he was for appointing a 
Committee of Conference with the other States, to de- 
cide what was to be done. - 

We have stated the existence and the contents of the 
MS. from a respect for the truth. We have contributed 
to the circulation of an error, and we seize the first op- 
portunity we can to correct it. Besides, it is due to the 
people, and especially to the politicians of South Caro- 
lina, to send the facts forth. 



passages struck out, and others interlined. The other 
is a fair and later copy, judging from the color of th< 
paper and of the ink, of Mr. J.'s draught We. are in 
dented to his grandson for the permission to examine 
these MSS. and compare them with the printed copies 
of the Kentucky Resolutions — and for the opportunity 
of correcting our own mistake, and of laying the fol- 
lowing result before our readers: 

Kzstuckt Resolutions.— Nov. 10, 1798. 

The first seven of these Resolutions are the same 
with those of Mr. Jefferson's draught, with the excep- 
tion of a word here and there. 

[The Enquirer proceeds to notice the varia 
tions between the original and the resolutions 
as adopted, which we omit, for the reason that 
we give in the next article at full length the 
whole of Mr. Jefferson's draught, which the 
reader may compare with the resolutions pub- 
lished in our paper of this day, and we tnink 
he cannot rise up from their perusal, without 
being brought to the conviction, that if there 
be any mistake or criminality in the doctrine of 
nullification, there can at least be no doubt of 
the fact, that Mr. Jefferson was the author of 
the term as applied to State interposition, and 
a fearless advocate of its applicability as 
** the rightful remedy " against federaf usurpa- 
tion, and that the republicans of '98 adopted his 
creed as the orthodoxy of their party.] 

KENTUCKY RESOLUTIONS OF '99. 

We were right as to the style of this paper. How- 

ever its sentiments may coincide with those of Mr. Jef- 

, ferson, the composition is not his— with one memorable 

I exception. * Nutt$catwn is thtjightful remedy"— thus 



From the United States Telegraph of March 



IMPORTANT DOCUMENT. 

We have been permitted to lay before our readers 
the following important extract from a letter written to 
the Hon. Warren R Davis, by Mr. Jefferson's grand- 
son and executor: * 

Richmond, March 8, 1832. 

Dear Sir: Last spring, when I had the pleasure of 
meeting you in Washington, you inquired of me if I 
bad any evidence in my possession which would show 
whether Mr. Jefferson was, or was not, the author of 
the resolutions offered by Mr. Breckenridge in the Ken- 
tucky Legislature in r 96. I have examined and com- 
pared the MSS. in my possession with both the resolu- 
tions offered by Nicholas and Breckenridge ; the first I 
find almost verbatim, as far as they go ; the second, m 
part the ideas, but not the language. The MS. contains 
nine resolutions. Nicholas adopted seven entire, and 
part of the eighth. Breckenridge took the ideas in part 
of the omitted resolutions. I send you that omitted by 
Nicholas ; you can best determine how far it concurs 
with B's. 

Resolution eight, after the words " no man or body 
of men on earth," add, " that in cases of the abuse of 
the delegated power, the members of the General Go- 
vernment being chosen by the people, a change by the 
people would be the constitutional remedy ; but where 
powers are assumed, which have not been delegated, a 
nullification of the act is the rightful remedy : that every 
State has a natural right in cases not within the com- 
pact, [casus non foederis] to nullify, of their own autho- 
rity, all assumptions of power by others within their 
limits; that, without this right, they would be under the 
dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whomsoever might 
exercise this right of judgment for them ; that, neverthe- 
less, this Commonwealth, from motives of regard and re- 
spect for its co-States, has wished to communicate with 
them on the subject : that with them alone it is proper 
to communicate, they alone being parties to the compact, 
and solely authorized to judge, in the last resort, of the 
power exercised under it. Congress being not a party, 
but merely the creature of the compact, and subject, as 
to its assumptions of power, to the final judgment of 
those by whom, and for whose use, itself and its powers 
were all created and modified." 

Again, towards the conclusion of the same resolution, 
after the words "and will each," add, " take measures 
of its own, for providiug that neither these acts, nor any 
others of the General Government, not plainly and in- 
tentionally authorized by the Constitution, shall be ex- 
ercised within their respective territories." 

" 9. Resolved, That the said Committee be authorized 
to communicate, by writing or personal conference, at 
any time or place whatever, with any person or persons 



' Thomas Jefferson Randolph, Esq.— Ed. 



ao 



THE EXAMINER, 



who may be appointed by any one or more of the co- 
States, fe correspond or confer with them ; and that 
they lay their proceedings before the neat session of the 
Assembly." 

The above will give the whole of the MSS. omitted 
in the first Kentucky resolutions. The variations in 
those resolutions are merely such as would occur in 
copying or pruning. You will perceive the sentence 
containing toe word "nullification," nearly resembling 
an expression in ihe second resolution, and that many 
of the ideas are the same. 

Original Draught, in the Hand-Writing of Mr. 
Jefferson, of the Kentucky Resolution* of '98 
and W. 

1. Resolved, That the several States composing the 
United States of America, are not uuited on the princi- 
ple of the unlimited submission to the General Govern- 
ment; but that by a compact, under the style and title 
of a Constitution for the Uuited States, and of amend- 
ments thereto, they constituted a General Government 
for special purposes, delegated to that Government cer- 
tain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself the 
risidavy mass of right to their own self-government ; 
and that whensoever the General Government assumes 
undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, 
and of no force *, that to this compact each State acceded 
Sjs a State, and is an integral party ; its co-States form- 
ing, as to itself, the other party: that the Government 
created by this compact, was not made the exclusive or 
final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it- 
self: sinee that would have made^ts discretion, and not 
the Constitution, the measure of hs powers; but that, 
4s in all other cases of compact among powers having 
no common judge, each party has an equal right to 
judge fot itself, as well of infractions as of the mode 
and measure of redress. 

2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the U. States 
having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, 
counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the Uni- 
ted States ; piracies and felonies committed on the high 
seas, and offences against the law of nations, and no 
other crimes whatsoever; and it being true, as a gene- 
cal principle, and one of the amendments to the Con- 
stitution having also declared that "the powers not de- 
legated to the U. Slates by the Constitution, nor prohi- 
bited by it to the States, are reset ved to the States re- 
spectively, or to the people;" therefore, the Act of Con- 
gress passed on the 14th of July, 1798, and entitled 
"' An Act in addition to the Act entitled an Act for the 
punishment of certain crimes against the United States ;" 

as also the Act passed by them on the day of June, 

1798, entitled "An Act to punish frauds committed on 
the Bank of the U. States;" [and all other their Acts 
which assume to create, define, or punish crimes, other 
than those so enumerated in the Constitution,] are al- 
together void and of no force, and that the power to 
create, define, and punish, such other crimes, is re- 
served, and of right appertains solely and exclusively, 
to the respective States, each within its own territory. 

3. Resolved, That it is true, as a general principle, 
and is also expressly declared, by one of the amend- 
ments to the Constitution, that the powers not delegated 
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited 
by it to the States, were reserved to the States respec- 
tively, or to the people ; and that no power over the 
freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of 
the press, being delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all law- 
ful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and 
were reserved to the States or the People ; that thus was 
manifested their determination to retain themselves the 
right of judging how far the licentiousness of speech 
and of the press may be abridged without lessening 
their useful freedom, and how far those abuses which 



canopt be separated from their use ahoqld be tolerated, 
rather than the use be destroyed; and thus also they 
guarded against all abridgement,' by the United States, 
of the freedom of religious opinions and exercises, and 
retained to themselves the right of protecting the same ; 
as this State, by a law passed on the general demand 
of its citizens, had already protected them from all hu- 
man restraints or interference, and that in addition to 
this general principle and express declaration, another 
and more special provision has been made by one of the 
amendments to tne Constitution, which expressly de- 
clares that " Congress shall make no law respecting aq 
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise 
thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the 
press;" thereby guarding, in the same sentence, and 
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, 
and of the press ; insomuch that whatever violates either, 
throws down the sanctuary which covers the others, and 
that libels, falsehood, and defamation, equally with here- 
sy and false religion, are withheld from the cognizance 
of federal tribunals ; that therefore the Act of Congress' 
of the United States, passed on the 14th day of July, 
1798, entitled "An Act in addition to an Act entitled an 
Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the 
United States," which does abridge the freedom of the 
press, is not law, but is altogether void and of no force. 

4. Resolved, That alien friends areimder the juris- 
diction and protection of the laws of the State wherein 
they are ; that no power over them has been delegated 
to the Uuited States, nor prohibited to the individual 
States, distinct from their power over citizens ; and Hs 
being true, as a general principle, and one of the amend- 
ments to the Constitution having also declared " that 
the powers not delegated to the United States by the 
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
served to the Stales respectively, or to the People," the 
Act of the Congress of the United Suites, passed on 
the day of July, 1798, entitled "An Act, concern- 
ing Aliens," which assumes powers over alien friends, 
not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is al- 
together void and of no force. 

5. Resolved, That, in addition to the general principle, 
as well as the express declaration, that powers not dele- 
gated are reserved, another and more special provision, 
inserted in the Constitution from abundant caution, has 
declared that " the migration or importation of such per- 
sons as any of the States now existing shall think proper 
to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior 
to the year 1808;" that this commonwealth does admit 
the emigration of alien friends, described as the subjects 
of the said Act concerning Aliens; that a provision 
against prohibiting their migration, is a provision against 
all Acts equivalent thereto, as it would be nugatory ; 
that, to remove them, when emigrated, is equivalent to 
a prohibition of their migration ; and is, therefore, con- 
trary to the said provision of the Constitution, and void. 

6. Resolved, That the imprisonment of a person under 
the protection of the laws of this Commonwealth, on his 
failure to obey the simple order of the President to de- 
part out of the United States, as is undertaken by the 
said Act entitled "An Act concerning Aliens," is con- 
trary to the Constitution, one amendment of which has 
provided that "no person shall be deprived of liberty 
without due process of law ;" and that another having 
provided that " in all criminal prosecutions the accused 
shall enjoy the right to a public trial by an impartial 
jury ; to be informed of the nature and cause of the 
accusation ; to be confronted with the witnesses against 
him ; to have compulsory process for obtaining witness- 
es in his favor ; aud to have the assistance of co ousel 
for his defence." The same Act undertaking to au- 
thorize the President of the United States -to remove a 
person out of the United States who is under the pro- 
tection of the law, on his own suspicion, without accu- 
sation, without jury, without public trial, without con- 
frontation of the witnesses against him, without bearing 
witnesses in his favor, jpithout defence, without conn- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



a» 



/ 



•el, is contrary to tbefe provisions, also, of the Consti- 
tmion ; is, therefore, not law, but utterly void and of ao 
force ; that, transferring the power of judging any per- 
son, who is under the protection of the law, from the 
oottrto to the President of the United States, as is un- 
dertaken by the same Act concerning Aliens, is against 
the snide of the Constitution which pro-rides that "the 
judicial powet of the United States shall be vested in 
courts, the judges of which shall hold their offices du< 
ring good behaviour ;" and that the said Act is void for 
that reason also ; and it it further to be noted, that this 
transfer of jddiciary power is to that magistrate of the 
General Government who already possesses all the ex* 
eeative, and a negative on all the legislative, powers. 

7. Btmfard, That the construction applied by the 
General 'Government, (as is evidenced by sundry of 
their proceedings) to those parts of the Constitution of 
the United States which delegate to Congress a power 
" to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, 
to pay the debts and' provide tor the common defence 
and general welfare of the United Suites, and to make 
afl laws which shaU be necessary and proper for car. 
rytug into execution the powers vested by the Con- 
stilMQen in the Governmeiit of the United Stales, or 
in' any department or officer thereof," goes to the de- 
struction or all the limits' 'prescribed to their power by 
the Constitution; that words- meant by that instrument 
to be subsidiary only to the 1 execution of limited powers, 
ou^ht not to be so construed *a themselves to give un- 
limited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy 
the whole residue of that instrument ; that the proceed- 
ings of the General Government, under color of these 
articles, wiU be a fit and necessary subject of rev i sal 
and correction at a time of greater tranquillity, while 
those specified in the preceding resolutions call for im- 
mediate redress. 

8. Resolved, That a Committee of Conference and 
Correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge 
to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legis- 
latures of the several States ; to assure them that this 
Commonwealth continues in the same esteem for their 
friendship and union, which it has manifested from 
that moment at Which a common danger first suggest- 
ed a common union ; that it considers union, for speci- 
fied national purposes, and particularly for those speci* 
fied in their late federal compact, to oe friendly to the 
peace, happiness, and prosperity, of all the States ; 
that, faithful to that compact, according to the plain in- 
tent and meaning iu which it was understood and ac- 
ceded to by the several parties, it is sincerely anxious 
for its preservation; that it does also believe that to 

I take from the States all the powers of self-government, 
and transfer them to a general and consolidated go- 
vernment, without regard to the special delegations 
and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, 
is not for the peace, happiness, or prosperity, of these 
States ; and that, therefore, this Commonwealth is de- 
termined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit 
to undelegated, and consequently to unlimited powers, 
in uo man or body of men on earth ; that in cases of 
an, ajgjuje <£ the d elegated power s, the memoers of the 
General uovernineht being cnosen by the people, a 
change by the people would be the constitutional re- 
medy ; but, where powers are assumed which have 
not been delegated, a Nu llification of the .Act, jsUje, 
jvery State has a natural right, 
compact, [casus non foederis,] 
othority, all assumptions of pow- 
er by others within their limits : that without this right 
they Would be under the dominion, absolute and unli- 
mited, of whomsoever might exercise this right of 
jndament for them ; that, nevertheless, this Common- 
wealth, from motives of regard and respect for its co- 
States, has wished to eommonfoate with them on the 
subject ; that with them alone it is proper to commu- 
nicate, they alone being parties to the compact, and 
solely authorized to judge, in the last resort, of the pow- 



meay; out, wnere powers are 
\not been delegated, aNuHificati 
|rig|itfqj Mmiftfo; that every Stat 
Jin cases not within the compact, 
f to nullify, of their own authority, i 



they may. 

any other j 
sel, judge, | 
deoce, his] 
r, and his/ 



era exercised under it, Congress, being not a party, bnt 
merely the creature of the compact, and subject, as to 
its assumption of power, to the final judgment of those 
by whom, and for whose use, itself and its powers went 
all created and modified ; that, if the Acts Wore speci* 
fied should stand, these conclusions would flow from 
them, that the General Government may place any Act 
they think proper on the list of crimes, and punish if 
themselves, whether enumerated or not enumerated by 
the Constitution as cognizable by them ; that they may. 
transfer its cognizance to the President, or any <'* 
person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, ji 
and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, 
order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and 
breast the sole record of the transactions ; that a very 
numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants 
of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as 
outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the 
barrier of the Constitution thus swept away for us all, 
no rampart now remains against the passions and the 
power of a majority in Congress to protect from a like 
exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the 
minority of the same body, the Legislatures, judges, go* 
vomers, and counsellors of the States, nor their other 
peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the 
Constitutional rights and liberties of the States and the 
people, or who, fop other causes, good or bad, may be 
obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicion, of 
the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their 
elections, or other interests, public or personal ; that the 
friendless alien has indeed been selected as the safest 
subject of a first experiment, but the citizen will soon 
follow ; rather, has already followed ; fbr already has a 
Sedition Act marked hi in as its prey : that these and 
successive acts of the same character, unless arrested) 
at the threshold, necessarily drive these States into re-J 
volution and blood, aud will furnish new calumnies 
against republican governments, and new pretexts for 
those who wish it to be believed that man cannot be go- [ 
veined but by a rod of iron ; that it would be a danger- ' 
oub ^delusion were a confidence in the men of our 
choice to silence our fears for the safety of our rights : 
that confidence is every where the parent of despotism. 
Free government is founded in jealousy, and not in I 
confidence; it is jealousy, and not confidence, which! 
prescribes limited Constitutions, to bind down those \ 
whom we are obliged to trust with power; that our 
Constitution has accordingly fixed the limits to which, 
and no further, oor confidence may go. And let the 
honest advocate of confidence read the Alien and Sedi- 
tion Acts, and say if the Constitution has not been wise 
in fixing limits to the government it created, and whe- 
ther we should be wise in destroying those limits? Lei 
him say what the government is, if it be not a tyranny r 
which the men of our choice have conferred on our Pre- 
sident, and the President of our choice has assented to 
and accepted, over the friendly strangers to whom the 
mild spirit of our country and its laws bad pledged 
hospitality and protection ; that the men of our choice 
have more respected the bare suspicions of the Presi- 
dent, than the solid rights of innocence, the claims of 
justification, the sacred force of truth, and the forms 
and substance of law and justice ; in questions of pow- 
er, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but 
bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Con- 
stitution: that this Commonwealth does, therefore, call 
on its co-States for an expression of their sentiments on 
the Acts concerning Aliens and for the punishment of 
certain crimes, hereinbefore specified ; plainly declaring 
whether these Acts are, or are not, authorized by the 
federal compact ? And it doubts not that their sense will 
be so enounced as to prove their aUacbmeut unaltered 
to limited government, whether general or particular ; 
and that the rights and liberties of their co-States will 
be exposed to no dangers by remaining embarked in a 
common bottom with their own ; that they will concur 
with this Commonwealth in considering the said Ads 



82 



THE EXAMINER, 



at eo palpably against the Constitution as to amount to 
an undisguised declaration that that compact is not meant 
to be the measure of the powers of the General Govern- 
ment, but that it will proceed in the exercise, over these 
States, of all powers whatsoever; that they will view 
this- as seizing the rights of the States, and consolidating 
them in the hands of the Geneial Government, with a 
power assumed to bind the States, [not merely in the 
cases made federal, cants fatderis'] but in all cases what- 
soever, by laws made, not with their consent, but by 
others against their consent; that this would be to sur- 
render the form of government we have chosen, and to 
live under one deriving its powers from its own will, 
and not from our authority ; and that the co-States, re- 
curring to their natural risht, in cases not made federal, 
will concur in declaring these Acts void and of no force, 
and will each take measures of its own for providing that 
neither the Acts, nor any others of the General Govern- 
ment, not plainly and intentionally authorized by the Con- 
stitution, shall be exercised within their respective terri- 
tories. 

9. Resolved, That the said committee be authorized to 
communicate, by writing or personal conferences, at any 
times .or places whatever, with any person or persons 
who may be appointed by any one or more of the co-States 
to correspond or confer with them ; and that they lay 
their proceedings before the next session of Assembly. 

Richmond, March 21, 1832. 
I have earefolly compared this copy with the MSS. 
of these resolutions in the hand-writing of Thomas Jef- 
ferson, and find it a correct and full copy. 

TH. JEFFERSON RANDOLPH. 



PENNSYLVANIA DOCTRINE 

AS TO THE 

POWERS of thb FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

Extract from the Decision of the Supreme Court, pro- 
nounced by Chief Justice McKcan, in the case of the 
Commonwealth vs. Cobbet, in December Term, 1799, 
as recorded in Dallas's Reports; the other Justices 
being Shippen, Yeates and Smith. 

" Previous to the delivery of my Opinion in a cause 
of each importance as to the consequences of the deci- 
sion, I will make a few preliminary observations on the 
Constitution and Laws of the Uuited States of Ame- 
rica. 

" Our System of Government seems to me to differ, 
in form and spirit, from all other Governments that 
have heretofore existed in the world. It is, as to some 
particulars, National — in others, Federal — and, in all 
the residue, Territorial, or in districts called States. 

44 The divisions Of power between the National, Fe- 
deral, and State Governments, (all derived from the 
same source, the authority of the People,) must be 
collected from the Constitution of the United States. 
Before it was adopted, the several States had absolute and 
unlimited sovereignty within their respective boundaries-- 
all the powers, Legislative, Executive, and Judicial, 
excepting those granted to Congress under the old 
Constitution. Tbey now enjoy them all, excepting 
such as are granted to the Government of the United 
States by the present instrument, and the adopted 
amendments, which are for particular nnrposes only. 
The Government of the United States forms a part of 
the Government of each Sate; its jurisdiction extends 
to the providing for the common defence against ex- 
terior injuries and violence, the regulation of commerce, 
and other matters especially enumerated in the Consti- 
tution. All other powers remain in the individual 
States, comprehending the interior and other concerns. 
These, combined, form one complete Government 
Should there be any defect in this form of Govern- 



ment, or any collision occur, it cannot be remedied by 
the sole act of the Congress, or of a State; the People 
must be resorted to for enlargement or modification. 
If a State should differ from the United States about 
the construction of them, there is no common umpire 
but the People, who should adjust the affair by making 
amendments in the constitutional way, or suffer from 
the defect In such a case, the Constitution of the 
United States is Federal— it is a league, or treaty, made 
by the individual States as one party, and all the States 
as another narty. When two nations differ about the 
meaning or any clause, sentence, or word, in a treaty, 
neither has an exclusive right to decide it ; they endea- 
vor to adjust the matter by negociation— but, if it can- 
not be thus accomplished, each has a right to retain its 
own interpretation until a reference be had to the medi- 
ation of other nations, an arbitration, or the fate of war. 
There is no provision in the Constitution, that, in such a 
case, the Judges of the Supreme Court of the United States 
shall, control and be conclusive. Neither can the Con- 
gress, by a law, confer that power. There appears to 
be a defect in this matter : it is a casus omissus, which 
ought in some way to be remedied. Perhaps the Vice- 
President and Senate of the United States— or Com- 
missioners appointed, say one by each State— would 
be a more proper tribunal than the Supreme Court 
Be that as it may, I rather think the remedy must be 
found in an amendment of the Constitution." 

Extract from the Decision pronounced by Chief Justice 
Tilghman, in the case of Gideon Olmstead, in 1809. 
For particulars of the case, see VoL 3 of Hall's Law 
Journal. - ► ... ^ . 

" The counsel of Olmstead have brought forward a 
preliminary question, whether I have a right to dis- 
charge the prisoner, even if 1 should be clearly of opi- 
nion that the District Court had no jurisdiction. I am 
aware of the magnitude of this question, and have gi- 
ven it the consideration it deserves. My opinion is, 
with great deference to those who may entertain differ- 
ent sentiments, that, in the case supposed, I shook! 
have a right, and ft would be my duty, to discharge the 
prisoner. This right flows from the nature of our Fe- 
deral Constitution, which leaves to the several States ab- 
solute supremacy in all cases in which it is not yielded 
to the United States. This sufficiently appears from 
the general scope and spirit of the instrument The 
United States have no power, legislative or judicial, ex- 
cept what is derived from the Constitution. When these 
powers are clearly exceeded, the independence of the 
States and the peace of the Union demand that the State 
courts should, in cases brought properly before them, 
give redress. There is no law which forbids it— their 
oath of office exacts it— and, if they do not, what course 
is to be taken T We must be reduced to the miserable 
extremity of opposing force to force, and arraying citi-, 
zen against citizen- -for it is vain to expect that the States 
will submit to manifest and flagrant usurpations or 
power by the United States, if (which God forbid) they 
ever attempt them. If Congress should pass a Bill of 
Attainder, or lay a tax or duty on articles exported from 
any State, (from both which powers tbey are expressly 
excluded,) such laws would be null and void, and all 
persons who acted under them would be subject to ac- 
tions in the State courts. If a court of the United States 
should enter a judgment against a State which refused 
to appear in an action brongnt against it by a citizen of 
another State, or by a foreign State, such judgment 
would be void, and all persons who act under it would 
be trespassers. These cases appear so plain, that they 
will hardly be disputed. It is only m considering 
doubtful cases, that our minds feel a difficulty in de- 
ciding. But (f, in the plainest case which can be con- 
sidered, the State courts may declare a judgment (of 
the United States court) to be void, the principle is 



THE EXAMINER, 

AND 

JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 

The Powers not Delegated to the United 8tate», by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 

States respectively, or to the People . . . . Amendments to tko Constitution. JSrL X 

frtodom of Industry, as sacred as freedom of speech or of the press Jtferson. 



Vol. H.] 



Philadelphia, Wednesday, September 3, 1834. 



[No. 3. 



Mr. Madison's Report 

ON THE 

VIRGINIA RESOLUTIONS. 



VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES. 

Session of 1799— 1800. 

REPORT of the Committee to whom were referred 

the Communications of various States, relative to 

the Resolutions of the last General Assembly of this 

State, concerning the Alien and Sedition Laws. 

Whatever room might be found in the proceed- 
ings of some of the States, who have disapproved 
of the Resolutions of the General Assembly of this 
Common wealth, passed on the 21st day of December, 
1798, for-painful remarks on the spirit and manner of 
'* J? — , it appears to toe Committee most 



those ] 



consistent with the duty, as well as dignity, of the Gene- 
ral Assembly, to hasten an oblivion of every circum- 
stance which might be construed into a diminution of 
mutual respect, confidence, and affection, among the 
members of the Union. 

The Committee have deemed it a more useful task 
to revise with a critical eye the resolutions which have 
met with this disapprobation; to examine fully the 
several objections and arguments which have appeared 
against them; and to inquire whether there be any 
errors of fact, of principle, or of reasoning, which the 
candor of the General Assembly ought to acknowledge 
and correct 

: - FIRST RESOLUTION. 

The first of the resolutions is in the words following : 
" Retolved, That the General Assembly of Virgiuia 
doth unequivocally express a firm resolution to main- 
tain and defend the Constitution of the United States, 
and the Constitution of this State against every aggres- 
sion, either foreign or domestic, and that they will sup- 
port the Government of the United States in all mea- 
sures warranted by the former." 

No unfavorable comment can have been made on 
the sentiments here expressed. To maintain and de- 
fend the Constitution of the United States, and of their 
own State, against every aggression, both foreign and 
domestic, and to support the Government of the United 
States in all measures warranted by their Constitu- 
tion, are duties which the General Assembly ought al- 
ways to feel, and to which, on such an occasion, it 
was evidently proper to express their sincere and firm 
adherence. 

SECOND RESOLUTION. 

In their next resolution—'* The General Assembly 
most solemnly declares a warm attachment to the Union 
of the States, to maintain which, it pledges all its pow- 



ers ; and that, for this end, it is their duty to watch 
over and oppose every infraction of those principles 
which constitute the only basis of that Union, because 
a faithful observance of them can alone secure its ex- 
istence and the public happiness." 

The observation just made is equally applicable to 
this solemn declaration of warm attachment to the 
Union, aud this solemn pledge to maintain it ; nor can 
any question arise, among enlightened friends of the 
Union, as to the duty of watching over and opposing 
every infraction of those principles which constitute 
its basis, and a faithful observance of which can alone 
secure its existence, and the public happiness thereon 
depending. 

THIRD RESOLUTION. 

The third resolution is in the words following : 

u That this Assembly doth explicitly and perempto- 
rily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal 
Government as resulting from the compact to which 
the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and 
intention of the instrument constituting that compact — 
as no further valid than they are authorised by the 
grants enumerated in that compact ; and that, in case 
of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of 
other powers, not granted by the said compact, the 
States who are parties thereto have the right, and are 
in duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress 
of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective 
limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertain 
ing to them." 

On this resolution the Committee have bestowed all 
the attention which its importance merits : They have 
scanned it dot merely with a strict, but with a severe 
eye * and they feel confidence in pronouncing, that, jn 
its just and fair construction, it is unexceptionably true 
in its several positions, as well as constitutional and 
conclusive in its inferences. 

The resolution declares, first, that u it views the 

Sowers of the Federal Government as resulting from 
le compact to which the States are parties ;" in other 
words, tnat the Federal powers are derived from the 
.Constitution ; and that the Constitution is a compact 
to* which the States are parties. 
. Clear as the position must seem, that the Federal 
powers are denved from the Constitution, and from 
that alone, the Committee are not unapprised of a late 
doctrine, which opens another source of Federal pow 
era, not less extensive and important, than it is new 
and unexpected. The examination of this doctrine 
will be most conveniently connected with a review of 
a succeeding resolution. The Committee satisfy them- 
selves here with briefly remarking, that in all the con- 
temporary discussions and comments which the Con- 
stitution underwent, it was constantly justified and re- 
commended, on the ground that the powers not riven 
to the Government, were withheld from it ; ana that 



34 



THE EXAMINER, 



if any doubt could have existed on this 'subject, under 
_ the original text of the Constitution, it is removed, as 
* t *Z f^ ^ wora " a could remove it ? by the 12th amendment, 
'0 *" n OW a part of the Constitution, which expressly de- 
clares ** that the powers not delegated to the United 
States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 
States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the 
people." 

The othofc position involved- in this branch of the re- 
solution, namely* " tfeat tlie State a are parties to the 
Constitution or compact," is, in the judgment of the 
Committee, equally free from objection. It is indeed 
true that the term " States " is sometimes used in a 
vague sense, and sometimes in different senses, accord- 
a ing to the subject to which it is applied. Thus, it some- 
times means the separate sections of territory ocenpied 
by the political societies within each ; sometimes the 
particular Governments established by those societies ; 
sometimes those societies as organized into those parti- 
cular Governments ; and, lastly, it means the people 
those political societies, in their highest 



' sovereign capacity. Although it might be wished that 
the perfection of language admitted less diversity in the 
signification of the same words, yet little inconvenience 
is produced by it where the true sense can be collect- 
ed with certainty from the different applications. In 
the present instance, whatever different constructions 
of the term " States," in the resolution, may have been 
entertained, all will at least concur in that last mention- 
ed ; because in that sense the Constitution was sub- 

/ mitted to the u States;" in that sense the " States" 

| ratified iU and in that sense of the term " States," 
they are 'consequently parties to the compact from 
which the powers of the Federal Government result. 

The next position is, that the General Assembly 
views the powers of the Federal Government " as 
limited by tne plain sense and intention of the instru- 
ment constituting that compact," and " as no farther 
valid than they are authorized by the grants therein 
enumerated." It does not seem possible that any just 
objection can lie against, either of these clauses. The 
first amounts merely to a declaration that the compact 
ought to have the interpretation plainly intended by 
the parties to it ; the other, to a declaration thai it 
ought to have the execution and effect intended by 
them. If the powers granted be valid, it is solely be- 
cause they are granted: and, if the granted powers 
are valid, because granted, all other powers not grant- 
ed must not be valid. 

The resolution having taken this view of the Federal 
compact, proceeds to infer, " that, in case of a delibe- 
rate, palpable, and dangerous exercise, of other powers, 
not granted by the said compact, the States who are 
parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound, 
to interpose for arresting the progress of the evil, and 
for maintaining, within their respective limits, the au- 
thorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them." 

It appears to your Committee to be a plain princi- 
ple, founded in common sense, illustrated by common 
practice, and essential to the nature of compacts — that, 
where resort can be bad to no tribunal superior to the 
authority of the parties, the parties themselves must be 
the rightful judges, in the last resort, whether the bargain 
made cms been pursued or violated. The Constitution 

\ of the United States was formed by the sanction of the 
States, given l>\ v in its sovereign capacity. It adds 

| to the stability and dignity, as well as to the authority 

1 of the Constitution, that it rests on this legitimate and 
solid foundation. The States, then, being the parties 
to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign ca- 
pacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tri- 
bunal above their authority, to decide, in the last resort, 
whether the compact made by them be violated ; and, 
consequently, that, as the parties to it, they must them- 

1 selves decide, in tne last resort, such questions as may 

be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. 

It does not follow, however, that because the States* 



as sovereign parties to their constitutional compact, 
must ultimately decide whether it has been violated, 
that such a decision ought to be interposed either in s 
hasty manner or on doubtful and inferior occasions. 
Even in the case of ordinary Conventions between 
different nations, where, by the strict rule of interpre- 
tation, a breach of a part may be deemed a breach of 
the whole — every part being deemed a condition of 
cverj other part, and of the whole— K is always laid 
down Uiat the breach must be both wilful and materia], 
to Justify an application of the rule. But in the case 
of an intimate and Constitutional Union, like that of 
the United States, it is evident that the interposition of 
the parties, iu their sovereign capacity, can be called for 
by occasions only deeply essentially affecting the vital 
principles of their political system. 

The resolution has, accordingly, guarded against any 
misapprehension of its object, by expressly requiring 
for such an interposition t4 the case of a dehbcrate 9 
palpable, and dangerous breach of the Constitution, by 
the exercise of poicers not granted by it." It mnst be 
a case, not of a light and transient nature, but of a na- 
ture dangerous to tne great purposes for which the Con- 
stitution was established. It must be a case, moreover, 
uot obscure or doubtful in its construction, but plain 
and palpable. Lastly, it must be a case not resulting 
from a partial consideration, or hasty determination; 
but a, case stamped with a final consideration and de- 
liberate adherence. It is not necessary, because the re- 
solution does not require that the question should be 
discussed, how far the exercise of any particular pow- 
er* ungranted by the Constitution, would justify the 
interposition of the parties to it. As eases might easily 
be stated, which none would contend ought to fall 
within that description ; cases, on the other hand, might, 
with equal ease, be stated, so flagrant and so fatal, as 
to unite every opinion iu placing them within the de- 
scription. 

But the resolution has done more than guard against 
misconstruction, by expressly referring to cases of a 
deliberate, patpable, una dangerous nature. It specifies 
the object of the interposition which it contemplates, 
to be solely that of arresting the progress of the evil 
of usurpation, and of main taming the authorities, 
rights, and liberties, appertaining to the States, as parties, 
to the Constitution. 

From this view of the resolution, it would seem in- 
conceivable that it can incur any just disapprobation - 
from those who, laying aside all momentary impres- 
sions, and recollecting the genuine source and object 
of the Federal Constitution, shall candidly, and accu- 
rately interpret the meaning of the General Assembly. 
If the deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpa- 
bly withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the 
parties to it in interposing, even so far as to arrest the 
progress of the evil, and thereby to preserve the Con- 
stitution itself, as well as to provide for the safety of 
the parties to it, there would be an end to all relief 
from usurped power, and a direct subversion of the 
rights specified or recognized under all the State Con- 
stitutions, as well as a plain denial of the fundamental 
principle on which our independence itself was de 
dared. 

But it is objected, that the Judicial authority is to.be 
regarded as the sale expositor of the Constitution, m 
the last resort; and it may be asked for wbat reason 
the declaration by the General Assembly, supposing it 
to be theoretically true, could be required at the pre- 
sent day, and in so solemn a manner. 

On this objection it might be observed, first : that 
there may be instances of usurped power, which the 
forma of the Constitution would never dntw within 
the control of the Judical department: secondly, that 
if the decision of the Judiciary be raised aoove the au- 
thority of the sovereign peHsss le«4w Osssttartieii, 
the decisions; ef the otfisr d o s Mutsu ents, not carried by 
the forms of the Conssitunen before the Jvficisay • 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



35 



most be equally authoritative and final with the de- 
cisions of that department But the proper answer to 
die objection is, that the resolution of the General As- 
sembly relates to those great and extraordinary cases 
( in which all the forms of the Constitution may prove 
i ineffectual against infractions dangerous to the assen- 
I nal rights of the parties to it The resolution supposes 
mat dangerous powers, not delegated, may not only be 
usurped and executed by' the otner departments, but 
that the Judicial department also may exercise or sanc- 
tion dangerous powers, beyond the grant of the Con- 
stitution ; and, consequently, that the ultimate right of 
the parties to the Constitution to judge whether the 
compact has been dangerously violated, must extend to 
violations by one delegated authority, as well as by 
another; by the Judiciary, as well as by the Executive 
or the Legislature. 

However true, therefore, it may be that the Judicial 
department is, in all questions Submitted to it by the 
forms of the Constitution, to decide in the last resort, 
this resort must necessarily be deemed the lost in rela- 
tion to the authorities of toe other departments of the 
(Government; not in relation to the rights of the par- 
ties to the constitutional compact from which the Ju- 
dicial as well as the other departments hold their dele- 
gated trusts. On any other hypothesis, the delegation 
of judicial power would annul the authority delegating 
h; and the concurrence of this department with the 
others in usurped powers, might subvert forever, and 
beyond the possible reach of any rightful remedy, the 
rery Constitution which all were instituted to preserve. 
The truth declared in the resolution being establish- 
ed, the expediency of making the declaration at the 
present day may safely be left to the temperate con- 
sideration and candid judgment o{ the American pub- 
lic. It will be remembered, that a frequent recurrence 
to fundamental principles is solemnly enjoined by most 
of the State Constitutions, and particularly by our own, 
as a necessary safeguard against the danger of degene- 
racy to* which Republics are liable, as well as other 
Governments, though in a less degree than others. 
And a fair comparison of the political doctrines not 
unfrequent at the present day, with those which cha- 
racterized the epoch of our Revolution, and which 
form the basis of our Republican Constitutions, will 
best determine whether the declaratory recurrence here 
made to those principles ought to be viewed as un- 
seasonable and improper, or as a vigilant discharge of 
an important duty. The authority of Constitutions 
over Governments, and of the sovereignty of the peo- 
ple over Constitutions, are truths which are at all times 
necessary to be kept in mind ; and at no time, perhaps, 
more necessary than at present. 

FOURTH RESOLUTION 

Hie fourth resolution stands as follows: 

M That the General Assembly doth also* express its 
deep regret that a spirit has, in sundry instances, been 
mamiested by the Federal Government, to enlarge its 
powers, bv forced constructions of the constitutional 
charter which defines them ; and that indications h?ve 
appeared of a design to expound certain general 
phrases (which, having been copied from the very 
limited grant of powers in the former Articles of Con- 
federation, were the less Jfiable to be misconstrued,) so 
as to destrojr^he meaning and. effect of the particular 
enumeration which necessarily explains and limits the 
fen lira! phrases, and so as to consolidate the States by 
degrees; wto one sovereignty ; the obvious tendency 
and inevitable result of which would be to transform 
the present Republican system of the United States 
into an absolute, or at bes^a mixed, monarchy." 

The >rsfqueetiou here to be considered 'is, whether 
a spirit has, m sundry instances, been manifested by 
the Federal Government to enlarge its powers by 
toned construction* of the constitutional charter. 

The General Assembly, having declared their opinion 
merely by regretting in general terms that forced con- 



structions for enlarging the Federal powers nave taken 
place ; it does not appear to the Committee necessary 
to go into a specification of every instance to which the 
resolution may allude. The Alien and Sedition Acts 
being particularly named in a succeeding resolution, 
are of course to be understood as included in the allu- 
sion. Omitting others which have less occupien pub- 
lic attention, or been less extensively regarded as un- 
constitutional, the resolution may be presumed to refer 
particularly to the Bank Law, which, from the circum- 
stances of its passage, as well as the latitude of con- 
struction on which it is founded, strikes the attention 
with singular force ; and the Carriage Tax, distinguished 
also by circumstances in its history having a similar 
tendency. Those instances alone, if resulting from 
forced construction, and calculated to enlarge the pow- 
ers of the Federal Government, as die Committee can- 
not but conceive to be the case, sufficiently warrant 
this part of the resolution. The Committee have not 
thought it incumbent on them to extend their attention 
te laws which have been objected to, rather as varying 
the constitutional distribution of powers in the Fede- 
ral Government, than as an absolute enlargement of 
them ; because instances of ,this sort, however import- 
ant in their principles and tendencies, do not appear to 
(all strictly within the text under review. 

The other questions presenting themselves, are — 1. 
Whether indications have appeared of a design to ex- 
pound certain general phrases copied from the •* Arti- 
cles of Confederation," so as to destroy the effect of 
the particular enumeration explaining and limiting 
their meaning. 2. Whether this exposition would by 
degrees consolidate the States into one sovereignty. 
3. Whether the tendency and result of this consolida- 
tion would be to transform the republican system of 
the United States into a monarchy. 

1. The general phrases here meant, must be those 
of providing for the common defence and general 
welfare." 

In the " Articles of Confederation," the phrases are 
used as follows, in Article VIU: ** All charges of war, 
and all other expenses that shall be incurred for the 
common defence and general welfare, and allowed by the 
United States in Congress assembled, shall be defrayed 
out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by 
the several States in proportion to the value of all land 
within each State, granted to or surveyed for any per 
son, as such land and the buildings and improvement* 
thereon shall be estimated, according to such mode as 
the United States, in Congress assembled, shall from 
time to time direct and appoint" 

In the existing Constitution, they make the following 
part of Sections: "The Congress shall have power 
to lay and collect taxes, duties, impost*, and excises, to 
pay the debts and provide for the common defence and 
general welfare of the United States." 

This similarity in the use of these phrases, in the 
two great Federal charters, might well be considered 
as rendering their meaning less liable to be miscon- 
strued in, the latter: because it will scarcely be said 
that in the former they were ever understood to be 
either a general grant of power, or to authorise the re- 
quisition or application of money by the old Congrcs* 
to the common defence and general welfare, except in 
the cases afterwards enumerated, which explained and 
limited their meaning; and if such was the limited 
meaning attached to these phrase* in the very instru- 
ment revised and re-modeled by the present Constitu- 
tion, it can never be supposed that, when copied into, 
this Constitution, a different meaning ought to be at- 
tached to them. 

That, notwithstanding this remarkable security 
against misconstruction, a design has been indicated to 
expound these phrases in the Constitution so as to de- 
stroy the effect of the particular enumeration of pow- 
ers by which it explains and limits them, must have 
fallen under the observation of those who have atteud- 



36 



THE EXAMINER, 



ed to the coarse of public transaction*. Not to multi- 
ply proofs on this subject, it will suffice to refer to the 
Debates of the Federal Legislature, in which argu- 
ments have on different occasions been drawn, with 
apparent effect, from these phrases, in their indefinite 
meaning. 

To these indications might be added, without look- 
ing farmer, the officjal Report on Manufactures, by the 
late Secretary of the Treasury, made on the 5th of De- 
cember, 1791 : and the- Report of a Committee of Con- 
gress, in January 1797, on the promotion of Agricul- 
ture. In the first of these it is expressly contended to 
belong "to the discretion of the National Legislature 
"to pronounce upon the objects which concern the 
"general welfare, and for which, under that description, 
" an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. 
" And there seems to be no room for a doubt that what- 
"ever concerns the general interests of learning, of 

j ** AGRICULTURE, of MANUFACTURES, and of COMMERCE, 

" are within the sphere of the National Councils, as 
"far as regards an application cf money." The latter 
Report assumes the same latitude of power in the Na- 
tional Councils, and applies it to the encouragement 
of Agriculture, by means of a society to be established 
at the seat of Government. Although neither o{ these 
Reports may have received the sanction of a law car- 
rying jt into effect, yet, on the other hand, the extraor- 
dinary doctrine contained in both has passed without 
the slightest positive mark of disapprobation from the 
authority to which it was addressed. 

Now, whether the phrases in question be construed 
to authorise every measure relating to the common de- 
fence and general welfare, as contended by some — or 
every measure only in which there might be an appli- 
cation of money, as suggested by the caution of others 
— the effect must substantially be the same, in destroy- 
ing the import and force of the particular enumera- 
tion of powers which follow these general phrases in 
the Constitution. For it is evident that there is not a 
single power whatever which may not have some re- 
ference to me common defence or the general welfare ; 
nor a power of any magnitude, which, in its exercise, 
does not involve or admit an application of money. 
The Government, therefore, which possesses power in 
either one or other of these extents, is a Government 
without the limitations formed by a particular enume- 
ration of powers; and, consequently, the meaning and 
effect of mis particular enumeration is destroyed by 
the exposition given to these general phrases. 

This conclusion will not be affected by an attempt 
to qualify the power over the " general welfare," by 
referring it to cases where the general welfare is beyond 
the reach of separate provisions by the individual 
States, and leaving to these their jurisdictions in cases 
to which their separate provisions may be competent. 
For, as the authority of the individual States must in 
all cases be incompetent to general regulations ope- 
rating through the whole, the authority of the United 
States would be extended to every object relating to 
the general welfare, which might, by any possibility, 
be provided for by the general authority. This quali- 
fying construction, therefore, would have little, if any, 
tendency to circumscribe the power claimed under the 
latitude of the terms "general welfare." 

The true and fair construction of this expression, 
both in the original and existing Federal compacts, ap- 
pears to the Committee too obvious to be mistaken. 
In both, the Congress is authorised to provide money 
for the common defence and general welfare. In both, 
t is subjoined to this authority an enumeration of the 
1 cases to which their powers shall extend. Money can- 
not be applied to the general welfare, otherwise than by 
an application of it to some particular measure con- 
ducive to the general welfare. Whenever, therefore, 
money has been raised by the general authority, and is 
to be applied to a particular measure, a question arises 
whether the particular measure be within the enume- 



rated authorities vested in Congress. If it be, the mo- 
ney requisite for it may be applied to it ; if it be not, 
no such application can be made. This fair and ob- 
vious interpretation coincides with and is enforced by 
the clause in the Constitution which declares that "no 
money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in con- 
sequence of appropriations by law " An appropria- 
tion of money to the general welfare would be deemed 
rather a mockery than an observance of this constitu- 
tional injunction. 

2. Whether the exposition of the general phrases 
here combatted would not by degrees consolidate the 
States into one sovereignty, is a question concerning 
which the Committee can perceive little room for 
difference of opinion. To consolidate the States into 
one sovereignty, nothing more can be wanted than to 
supersede their respective sovereignties in the 



reserved to them, by extending the sovereignty of the 
United States to all cases of the "general welfare," 
that is to say, to all cases whatever. 

3. That the obvious tendency and inevitable result 
of a consolidation of the States into one sovereignty, 
would be to transform the republican system of the 
United States into a monarchy, is a point which seems 
to have been sufficiently decided by the general senti- 
ment of America. In almost every instadce of dis- 
cussion relating to the consolidation in question, its 
certain tendency to pave the way to monarony seems 
not to have been contested. The prospect of such a 
consolidation has formed the only topic of controversy. 
It would be unnecessary, therefore, for the Committee 
to dwell long on the reasons which support the posi- 
tion of the General Assembly. It may not be impro- 
Ser, however, to remark two consequences evidently 
owing from an extension of the Federal powers to 
every subject falling within the idea of the "general 
welfare." 

One consequence must be, to enlarge the sphere of i 
discretion allotted to the Executive Magistrate. Even! 
within the Legislative limits properly defined by the 
Constitution, the difficulty of accommodating legal re- 
gulations to a country so great in extent and so various 
in its circumstances, nas been much felt; and has led 
to occasional investments of power in the Executive, 
which involve perhaps as large a portion of discretion as 
can be deemed consistent with the nature of the Execu- 
tive trust In proportion as the objects of legislative 
care might be multiplied, would the time allowed for 
each be diminished, and the difficulty of providing uni- 
form and particular regulations for all ne increased. 
From these sources would necessarily ensue a greater 
latitude to the agency of that department which is al- 
ways in existence, and which could best mould regula- 
tions of a general nature so as to suit them to the di- 
versity of particular situations. And it is in this lati- 
tude, as a supplement to the deficiency of the laws, 
that the degree of Executive prerogative materially 
consists. 

The other consequence would be, that of an < 



sxcess- i 
ive augmentation of the offices, honors, and emota- I 
ments, depending on the Executive will. Add to the I 
present legitimate stock all those of every description 
which a consolidation of the States would take from 
them and turn over to the Federal Government, and 
the patronage of the Executive would necessarily be 
as much swelled in this case, as its prerogative would 
be in the other. 

This disproportionate increase of prerogative and 
patronage must evidently either enable the Chief Ma- 
gistrate of the Union, by quiet means, to secure bis 
re-election from time to time, and finally to regulate 
the succession as he mightyplease ; or, by giving so 
transcendant an importance*to the office, would render 
the elections to it so violent and corrupt that the pub- 
lic voice itself might call for an hereditary, in place of 
an elective, succession. Whichever of these events 
might follow the transformation of the republican sys- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 



37 



tent of the United States into a monarchy, anticipated 
by the General Assembly from a consolidation of toe 
Mates into one sovereignty, would be equally accom- 
plished; and whether it would be into a mixed or an 
absolute monarchy, might depend on too many contin- 
gencies to admit of any certain foresight. 



FIFTH RESOLUTION. 

The resolution next in order, is contained in the fol- 
lowing terms: 

u That the General Assembly doth particularly pro- 
test against the palpable and alarming infractions o/ the 
Constitution, in the two late cases of the " Alien and 
Sedition Acts," passed at the last session of Congress; 
the first of which exercises a power nowhere delegated 
to the Federal Government ; and which, by uniting 
Legislative and Judicial powers to those of Executive, 
subverts the general principles of a free government, 
as weU as the particular organization and positive pro- 
visions of the Federal Constitution; and the other 
of which acts exercises, in like manner, a power not 
delegated by the Constitution ; but, on the contrary, 
expressly and positively forbidden by one of the 
amendments thereto: a power which, more than any 
other, ought to produce universal alarm ; because it is 
levelled against that right of freely examining public 
characters and measures, and of free communication 
, among the people thereon, which has ever been justly 
I deemed the only effectual guardian of every other 
right." 

The subject of this resolution having, it is presumed, 
more particularly led the General Assembly into the. 
proceedings which they communicated tc the other 
States, and being in itself of peculiar importance, it de- 
serves the most critical and faithful investigation; for 
the length of which, no other apology will be neces- 

The subject divides itself into, first, " The Alien 
Act;" secondly, •' The Sedition Act." 

Of the "Alien Act," it is affirmed by the Resolu- 
tion, 1st. That it exercises a power nowhere dele- 
gated to the Federal Government 2d. That it unites 
Legislative and Judicial powers to those of the Execu- 
tive. 3d. That this union of power subverts the gene- 
ral principles of free government. 4th. That it sub- 
verts the particular organization and positive provisions 
of the Federal Constitution. 

In order to clear the way for a correct view of the 
first position, several observations will be premised. 

In the first place ; it is to be borne in mind, that, it 
being a characteristic feature of the Federal Constitu- 
tion as it was originally ratified, and an amendment 
thereto having precisely declared " That the powers 
not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 
States respectively, or to the people ;" it is incumbent 
in this, as in every other exercise of power by the 
Federal Government, to prove, from the Constitution, 
that it giants the particular power exercised. 

The next observation to be made, is, that-much con- 
fusion and'Csllacy have been thrown into the question, 
by blending the two cases of aliens, members of a hostile 
nation; and aliens, members of friendly nations. These 
two cases are so obviously and so essentially distinct, 
that it occasions no little surprise that the distinction 
should have been disregarded: and the surprise is so 
much the greater as it appears that the two cases are 
actually distinguished by two separate Acts of Con- 
gress, passed at the same session, and comprised in the 
same publication ; the one providing for the case of 
u alien enemies," the other «,« concerning aliens" in- 
discriminately, and consequently extending to aliens of 
every nation in peace and amity with the United 
States. With respect to alien enemies, no doubt has 
been intimated as to the Federal authority over tbem; 
the Constitution having expressly delegated to Con- 
gress the power to declare war against any nation, and 



6f course to treat k and all its members as enemies* 
With respect to aliens who are not enemies, but mem- 
bers of nations in peace and amity with the United 
States, the power assumed by the Act of Congress is 
denied to be constitutional; and it is accordingly 
against this Act that the protest of the General Assem- 
bly is expressly and exclusively directed. 

.A third observation is, that, were it admitted, as is 
contended, that the " Act concerning Aliens " has for 
its object not a penal, but a preventive justice, it would 
still remain to be proved that it comes within the con- 
stitutional power of toe Federal Legislature : and, if 
within its power, that the Legislature has exercised it 
in a constitutional manner. 

In the administration of preventive justice, the fol- 
lowing principles have been held sacred : that some 
probable* ground of suspicion be exhibited before some 
judicial authority; that it be supported by oath or af- 
firmation; that the party may avoid being thrown into 
confinement, by finding pledges or sureties for his le- 
gal conduct, sufficient in the judgment of some judicial 
authority ; that he may have the benefit of a writ of 
habeas corpus, and thus obtain his release, if wrong- 
fully confined ; and that he may at any time be dis- 
charged from his recognizance, or his confinement, and 
restored to his former liberty and rights, on the order 
of the proper judicial authority, if it shall see suffi- 
cient cause. 

All these principles of the only preventive justice 
known to American jurisprudence, are violated by the 
Alien Act The ground or suspicion is to be judged of 
not by any judicial authority, but by the Executive Ma- 
gistrate atone: no oath or affirmation is required; if 
the suspicion be held reasonable by the President, he 
may order the suspected Alien to depart the territory 
of the United States, without the opportunity of avoid- 
ing the sentence by finding pledges for his future 
§ood conduct; as the President may limit the time of 
eparture as he pleases, the benefit of the writ of ha- 
beas corpus may be suspended with respect to the 
party, although the Constitution ordains mat it shall 
not be suspended unless when the public safety may 
require it, in 'case of rebellion or invasion, neither ot* 
which existed at the passage of the Act: and the party 
being, under the sentence of the President, either re- 
moved from the United States, or being punished by 
imprisonment, or disqualification ever to become a 
citizen, on conviction of not obeying the order of re- 
moval, he cannot be discharged fronv the proceedings 
against him, and restored to the benefits or his former 
situation, although the highest judicial authority should 
see the most sufficient cause for it 

But, in the last place, it can never be admitted that 
the removal of aliens, authorised by the Act, is to be 
considered, not as punishment for an offence, but as a 
measure of precaution and prevention. If the banish- 
ment of an alien from a country into which he has 
been invited as the asylum most auspicious to his hap- 
piness, a country where he may have formed the most 
tender connections; where he may have invested his 
entire property, and acquired property of the real and 
permanent, as well as the moveable and temporary 
kind — where he enjoys, under the laws, a greater share 
of the blessings of personal security and personal liberty, 
than he can elsewhere hope for, and where he may have 
nearly completed his probationary tide to citizenship : 
if, moreover, in the execution of the sentence against 
him, he is to be exposed, not only to die ordinary 
dangers of the sea, but to the peculiar casualties ina- 
of| dent to a crisis of war, and of unusual licentiousness 
on that element, and possibly to vindicate purposes 
which his emigration itself may have "provoked; if a 
banishment of this sort be not a punishment and 
among the severest of punishments, it will be difficult 



to imagine a doom to which the name can be applied. 
And if it be a punishment it will remain to pa in- 
quired whether it can be sonstitutionally inflicted, on 



38 



THE EXAMINER, 



mere bus picion, by the single will of the Executive 
Magistrate, on persons convicted of no personal offence 
against the laws of the land, nor involved in any of- 
fence against the law of nations, charged on the foreign 
state of which they are members. 

One argument offered in justification of this power 
exercised over Aliens, is, that the admission of them 
into the country being of favor, not of right, the favor 
is at all times revocable. 

To this argument it might be answered, that, allow- 
ing the truth of the inference, it would be no proof 
of what is required. A question would still occur, 
whether the Constitution had vested the discretionary 
power of admitting Aliens, in the Federal Government 
or in the State Governments. 

But it cannot be a true inference, that, because the 
admission of an Alien is a favor, the favor may be re- 
voked at pleasure. A grant of land to an individual 
may be of favor, not of right; but the moment the 
grant is made, the favor becomes a right, and must be 
forfeited before it can be taken away. To pardon a 
malefactor, may be a favor, but the pardon is not on 
that account the less irrevocable. To admit an Alien 
to naturalization, is as much a favor as to admit him to 
reside in the country, yet it cannot be pretended that 
a person naturalized can be deprived of the benefits, 
any more than a native citizen can be disfranchised. 
' Again, it is said that Aliens not being parties to the 
Constitution, the rights and privileges which it secures 
cannot be at all claimed by them. 

To this reasoning, also, it m ; ght be answered that, 
although Aliens are not parties to the Constitution, it 
does not follow that the Constitution has vested in Con- 
gress an absolute power over them The parties to 
the Constitution may have granted, or retained, or 
modified, the power over aliens, without regard to that 
particular consideration. 

But a more direct reply is, that it does not follow, 
because Aliens are not parties to the Constitution, as 
- citizens are parties to it, that, whilst they actually, con- 
form to it, they have no right to its protection. Aliens 
are not more parties to the laws than they are parties 
to the Constitution ; yet it will not be disputed that, 
as they owe* on one hand, a temporary obedience, 
they are entitled, in return, to their protection and ad- 
vantage. «~ 

If Aliens had no rights under the Constitution, they 
might not only be banished, but even capitally punish- 
ed^ without a jury or the other incidents to a fair trial. 
Bnt so far has a contrary principle been carried, in 
every part of the United States, that, except on charges 
of treason, an Alien has, besides all the common 
privileges, the special one of being tried by a jury, of 
which one haJf may be also Aliens. 

It is said, further, that by the law and practice of 
mfrma, Aliens mar be removed at discretion for of- 
fences against the law of nations; that Congress are 
authorized to define and punish such offences; and 
that to be dangerous to the peace of society, is, in 
Aliens, one of those pffences. 

The distinction between Alien enemies and Alien 
friends, is a clear and conclusive answer to this argu- 
ment Alien enemies are under the law of nations. 
and liable to be punished for offences against it Alien 
friends, except in the single case of public ministers, 
are under the municipal law, and must be tried and 
punished according to that law only. 

TW§ argument also, by referring the Alien Act to 
the power of Congress to define and punith offences 
Against the law of nations, yields the point that the 
Act is of a paud, not merely of a preventive, opera- 
tion. It must, in troth, be so considered. And if it 
oe a penal Act, the punishment it inflicts must be justi- 
fied by some offence that deserves it 

Offences for which Aliens, within the jurisdiction 
of a country, are -punishable, are, first, offences com- 
mitted by the nation of which they make a part, and 



in whose offences they are involved : Secondly, of- 
fences committed by themselves alone, without any 
charge against the nation to which they belong. The 
first is the case of Alien enemies; the second, the case 
of Alien friends. In the first case, the offending na- 
tion can no otherwise be punished than by war, one 
of the laws of which authorises the expulsion of such 
of its members as may be found within the country 
against which the offence has been committed. In the 
second case, the offence being committed by the indi- 
vidual, not by his nation, and against the municipal 
law", not against the law of uations, the individual only, 
and not the nation, is punishable; and the punishment 
must be conducted according to the municipal law, not 
according to the law of nations. Under this view of 
the subject, the Act of Congress for the removal 6f 
Alien enemies, being conformable to the law of na- 
tions, is justified by the Constitution: and the "Act" 
for the removal of Alien friends, being repugnant to 
the constitutional principles of municipal law, is un- 
justifiable. 

Nor is the Act of Congress for the removal of 
Alien friends, more agreeable to the general practice 
of nations, than It is within the purview of the law of 
nations. The general practice of nations distinguish- 
es between Alieu friends and Alien enemies. The 
latter it has proceeded against according to the law of 
nations, by expelling them as enemies. The former 
it has considered as under a local and temporary aHe- * 
giance, and entitled to a correspondent protection. If 
contrary instances are to be found in barbarous coun- 
tries, under undefined prerogatives, or amid revolu- 
tionary dangers, they will not be deemed fit precedents 
for the Government of the United States, even if not 
beyoud its constitutional authority. 

It is said that Congress may grant letters of marque 
and reprisal ; that reprisals may be made on persons ae 
well as property ; and that the removal of Aliens may 
be considered as the exercise, in an inferior degree, of 
the general power of reprisal on persons. 

Without entering minutely into a question that does 
not seem to require it, it may be remarked, that repri- 
sal is a seizure of foreign persons or property, witn a 
view to obtain that justice for injuries done by one 
State or its members to another State or its members; 
for which a refusal of the aggressors requires such a 
resort to force under the law of nations. It must be 
considered as an abuse of words to call the removal of 
persons from a country a seizure or reprisal on them : 
nor is the distinction to be overlooked between repri- 
sals on persons within the country and under the farm 
of its laws, and on persons out or the country. Bnt, 
laying aside these considerations, it is evidently im- 
possible to bring the Alien Act within the power of 
granting reprisals: since it does not allege or imply 
any injury received from any particular nation, for 
which this proceeding against its members was intend- 
ed as a reparation. 

The proceeding is authorized against Aliens qf every 
nation ; of nations charged neither with any similar 
proceedings against American citizens, nor with any 
injuries for which justice might be sought in the mode 
prescribed by the Act Were it true, therefore, that 
good causes existed for reprisals against one or more 
foreign nations, and that neither the persons nor pro- 
perty of its members, under the faith of our laws, tfould 
Elead an exemption, the operation of the Act ought to 
ave been limited to the Aliens among us, belonging 
to such nations. To license reprisals against all na- 
tions, for aggressions charged on one only, would be a 
measure as contrary to every principle of justice and 
public law, as to a wise poucy and the universal prac- 
tice of nations. 

It is said that the right of removing Aliens is an in- 
cident to the power of war, vested in Congress by the 
Constitution. 

This it a former argument in a new shape only ; and it 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



39 



answered by repeating that the removal of Alien ene- 
mies is an incident to the power of war ; that the re* 
moral of Alien friends is not an incident to the power 
of war.' 

It is said that Congress are by the Constitution to 
protect each State against invasion ; and that the means 
of preventing invasion are included in the power of 
protection against it 

The power of war, in general, having been before 
granted by the Constitution, this clause must either be 
a mere specification for greater caution and certainty, of 
which there are other examples in the instrument, or 
be the injunction of a duty, superadded to* a grant of 
the power. Under either explanation it cannot en- 
large the powers of Congress on the subject The 
power and the duty to protect each State against an 
invading enemy, would be the same under the general 
power, if this regard to greater caution had been 
omitted. 

Invasion is an operation of war. To protect against 
invasion, is an exercise of the power or war. A pow- 
er, therefore, not incident to war, cannot be incident 
to a particular modification of war. And as the re- 
moval of Alien friends has' appeared to be no incident 
to a general state of war, it cannot be incident to a 
partial state or a particular modification of war. 

Nor can it ever be granted that a power to act on a 
ease when it actually occurs, includes a power over all 
the means that may tend to prevent the occurrence of 
the case. Such a latitude of construction would ren- 
der unavailing every practical definition of particular 
and limited powers. Under the idea of preventing 
war in general, as well as invasion iu particular, not 
only an indiscriminate removal of all Aliens might be 
enforced, but a thousand other things, still more re- 
mote from the operations and precautions appurtenant 
to war* might take place. A bigoted or tyrannical na- 
tion might threaten us with war, unless certain religi- 
ons or political regulations were adopted by us; yet it 
never could be interred, jf the regulations which would 
prevent war were sudTas Congress bad otherwise no 
power to make, that the power to make them would 
grow out of the purpose they were to answer. Con- 
grats have power to suppress insurrections, yet it 
would not be allowed to follow that they might employ 
all the means tending to prevent them ; of which a 
system of moral instruction for the ignorant, and of 
provident support for the poor, might be regarded as 
among the most efficacious. 

One argument for the power of the General Govern- 
ment to remove Aliens, would have been passed in si- 
lence, if it had appeared under any authority inferior 
to that of a Report made during the last session of Con- 
gress, to the House of Representatives, by a Commit- 
tee, and approved by the House. The doctrine on 
which this argument is founded, is of so new and so 
extraordinary a character, and strikes so radically at 
the political system of America, that it is proper to state 
it in the very words of the report 

The Act [concerning Aliens] is said to be uncon- 
stitutional, because to remove Aliens is a direct breach 
of the Constitution, which provides, by the 9th section 
of the first article, mat the migration or importation of 
such persons as any of the States shall think proper to 
admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress, prior 
to the year 1806." 

Amonx; the answers given to this objection to the 
eonstkotmnejitr of the Act, the following very remark- 
able one is extracted: 

a Thirdly, that, as the Constitution has given to the 
fal* no power to 'remove Aliens during the period 
of the Hmjtation under consideration, in the mean time, 
on the construction assumed, there would be no au- 
thority in the country empowered to send away dan- 
gerous Aliens; which cannot be admitted." 

The reasoning here used would not in any view be 
conclusive, because there are powers exercised by most 



other Governments, which, in the United States, are 
withheld by the people, both from the General Govern- 
ment and from the state Governments. Of this sort 
are many of the powers prohibited by the declarations 
of right prefixed to the Constitutions, or by the clauses 
in the Constitutions, in the nature of such declarations. 
Nay, so, far is the political system of the United States 
distinguishable from that of other countries, by the cau- 
tion with which powers are delegated and defined, 
that, in one very important case, even of commercial 
regulation and revenue, the power is absolutely locked 
up against the hands of both Governments. A tax oni 
exports can be laid by no constitutional authority what ' 
ever. Under a system thus peculiarly guarded, mere ' 
could surely be no absurdity in supposing that Alien 
friends, who, if guilty of treasonable machinations, 
may be punished, or, if suspected on probable grounds, 
may be secured by pledges or imprisonment, in like 
manner with permanent citizens, were never meant to 
be subjected to banishment by any arbitrary and unu- 
sual process, either under the one Government or the 
other. 

But, it is not the inconclusiveness of the general 
reasoning in this passage, which chiefly calls the atten- 
tion to it. It is the principle assumed by it, that the 
powers held by the States are given to them by the 
Constitution of the United States; and the inference 
from this principle, that the powers supposed to be ne- 
cessary, Which are not so given to the State Govern- 
ments, most reside in the Government of the United 
States. 

The respect which is felt for every portion of the 
constituted authorities, forbids some of the reflections 
which this singular paragraph might excite ; and they 
are the more readily suppressed, as it may be pre- 
sumed, with justice, perhaps, as well as candor, that 
inadvertence may have had its share in the error. It 
would be an unjustifiable delicacy, nevertheless, to pass 
by so portentous a claim, proceeding from so high an au- 
thority, without a monitory notice of the fatal tenden- 
cies with which it would be pregnant 

Lastly, it is said that a law on the same subject with 
the Alien Act, passed by this State originally in 1785, 
and re-enacted in 1792, is a proof that a summary re- 
moval of suspected Aliens was not heretofore regarded, 
by the Virginia Legislature, as liable to the objections 
now urged against such a measure. 

This charge against Virginia vanishes before the 
simple remark that the law of Virginia relates to "sus- 
picious persons, being the subjects of any foreign 
Power or State who snail have made a declaration of 
tear, or actually commenced hostilities, or from whom 
the President shall apprehend hostile designs;" where- 
as the Act of Congress relates to Aliens, being the sub- 
jects of foreign Powers and States who have neither 
declared war nor commenced hostilities, nor from whom 
hostile designs are apprehended. 

II. h is next affirmed, of the Alien Act, that it unites 
Legislative, Judicial, and Executive powers, in the 
hands of the President. 

However difficult it may be to mark, in every case, 
with clearness and certainty, the line which divides 
Legislative power from the other departments of pow- 
er, all will agree that the powers referred to these de- 
partments may be so general and undefined as to be 
of a Legislative, not of an Executive or Judical, na- 
ture ; and may for that reason be unconstitndonal. 
Details, to a certain degree, are essential to the nature 
and character of a law ; and on criminal subjects it is " 
proper that details should leave as little as possible to 
the discretion of those who are to apply and execute 
the law. If nothing more were required, in exercising 
a Legislative trust, than a general conveyance of au- 
thority, without laying down any precise rules by which 
the authority conveyed should be. carried into effect, it 
would follow that the whole power of legislation might 
be transferred by the Legislature from itself, and pro* 



40 



THE EXAMINER, 



clamations might become substitutes for laws. A de- 
legation of power in this latitude would not be denied 
to be a union of the different .powers. 

To determine, then, whether the appropriate pow> 
ers of the distinct departments are united by the Act 
authorising the Executive to remove Aliens, it must be 
inquired whether it contains such details, definitions. 
and rules, as appertain to the true character of a law ; 
especially a law by which personal liberty is invaded, 
property deprived of its value to the owner, and lfle 
itself indirectly exposed to danger. 

The Alien Act declares " that it shall be lawful for 
the President to order all such Aliens as he shall Judge 
dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, 
or shall have reasonable ground to suspect are concern- 
ed in any treasonable or secret machinations against the 
Government thereof, to depart," &c. 
1 Could a power be given in terms less definite, less 
particular, and less precise ? To be dangerous to the 
public safety; to be suspected of secret machinations 
against the Government: these can never be mistaken 
for legal rules or certain definitions. They leave eyery 
thing to the President His will is the law. 

But it is not a Legislative power only that is given 
to the President He is to stand in the place of the 
Judiciary also. His suspicion is the only evidence 
which is to convict: his order the only judgment which 
it to be executed. 

Thus it is the President whose will is to designate 
{he offensive conduct; it is his will that is to ascertain 
the individuals on whom it is charged ; and it is his 
will that is to cause the sentence to be executed. It is 
lightly affirmed, therefore, that the Act unites Legisla- 
tive and Judicial powers to those of the Executive. 

III. It is affirmed that this union of power subverts 
the general principles of free government. 

It has become an axiom in the science of govern- 
ment, that a separation of the Legislative, Executive, 
end Judicial departments, is necessary to the preserva- 
tion of public liberty. Nowhere has this axiom been 
better understood in theory, or more carefully pursued 
.in practice, than in the United States. 

Iv. It is affirmed that such a union of powers sub- 
verts the particular organization and positive provisions 
of the Federal Constitution. 

According to the particular organization of the Con- 
stitution, its Legislative powers are vested in the Con- 
cress, its Executive powers in the President, and its 
Judicial powers in a supreme and inferior tribunals. 
The union of any two of these powers, and still more 
of all three, in any one of these departments, as has 
been shown to be done by the Alien Act, must conse- 
quently subvert the constitutional organization of them. 

That positive provisions in the Constitution, se- 
eming to .individuals the benefits of fair trial, are also 
violated by the union of powers in the Alien Act, ne- 
ees sa rily results from the two factB.that the Act relates 
to Alien friends, and that Alien friends, being under the 
municipal law only, are entitled to its protection. 

The second object against which the 'resolution pro- 
tests, is the Sedition Act 

Of this Act it is affirmed, 1. That it exercises in like 
manner a power not delegated by the Constitution. 
2. That the power, on the contrary, is expressly and 
positively forbidden by one of the amendments to the 
Constitution. 3. That this is a power which more than 
any other ought to produce universal alarm ; because 
ft ■ levelled against that right of freely examining pub- 
Be characters and measures, and of free communica- 
tion thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the 
onhr effectual guardian of every other right 

1. That it exercises a power not delegated by the 
Constitution. 

Here, again, it will be proper to recollect that the 
Federal Government being composed of powers spe- 
cifically granted, with a reservation of all others to the 
States or to the People, the positive authority under 



which the Sedition Act could be passed must be produced 
by those who assert its constitutionality. In what part 
of the Constitution, then, is this authority to be found? 

Several attempts have been made to answer this 
question, which will be examined in their order. The 
Committee will begin with one which has filled them 
with equal astonishment and apprehension; and which, 
they cannot but persuade themselves, must have the 
same effect on all who will consider it with coolness 
and impartiality, and with a reverence for our Consti- 
tution in the true character in which it issued from 
the sovereign authority of the People. The Commit- 
tee refer to the doctrine lately advanced, as a sanction 
to the Sedition Act, " that the common or unwritten 
law," a law of vast extent and complexity, and em- 
bracing almost every possible subject of legislation, 
both civil and criminal, makes a part of the law of 
these States, in their united and national capacity. 

The novelty, and, in the judgment of the Commit- 
tee, the extravagance, of this pretension, would have 
consigned it to the silence in which they have passed 
by other arguments which an extraordinary zeal for 
the Act has drawn into the discussion ; but the auspices 
under which this innovation presents itself, have con- 
strained the Committee to bestow on it an attention 
which other considerations might have forbidden. 

In executing the task, it may be of use to look back 
to the colonial state of this country prior to the Revo- 
lution ; to trace the effect of the Revolution which con- 
verted the colonies into independent States ; to inquire 
into the import of the Articles of Confederation, the 
first instrument by which the union of the States was 
regularly established ; and, finally, to consult the Con- 
stitution of 1787, which is the oracle that must decide 
the important question. 

In the state prior to the Revolution, it is certain that 
the common law, under different limitations, made a 
part of the colonial codes. But whether it be under- 
stood that the original colonists brought the law with 
mem, or made it their law by adoption, it is equally 
certain that it was the separate law of each colony} 
within its respective limits, and was unknown to them 
as a law pervading and operating through the whole 
as one society. 

It could not possibly be otherwise. The common 
law was not the same in any two of the colonies ; in 
some the modifications were materially and extensive- 
ly different There was no common Legislature, by 
which a common will could be expressed in the form of 
a law ; nor any common magistracy, by which such a law 
could be carried into practice. The will of each colony, 
alone and separately, had its organs for these purposes. 

This stage of our political history furnishes no foot- 
hold for the patrons of this new doctrine. 

Did, then, the principle or operation of the great 
event which made the colonies independent States, im- 
ply or introduce the common law as a law of the Union 1 

The fundamental principle of the Revolution was, 
that the colonies were co-ordinate members with each 
other, and with Great Britain ; of an empire united by 
a common executive sovereign, but not united by any 
common legislative sovereign. The legislative power 
was maintained to be as complete in each American 
Parliament, as in the British Parliament And the 
Royal prerogative was in force in each colony by viw 
tue of its acknowledging the King for its executive ma-l 
gistrate, as it was iu Great Britain by virtue of a like] 
acknowledgment there. A denial of these principles! 
by Great Britain, and the assertion of them by Ameri-I 
ca,produced the Revolution. 

There was a time, indeed, when an exception to the le- 
gislative separation of the several component and co-equal 
parts of the empire, obtained a degree of acquiescence. 
The British Parliament was allowed to regulate the trade i 
with foreign nations, and between the different parts of the \ 
empire. This was, however, mere practice without right,) 
and contrary to the true theory of the ConstitutioB. The 
convenience of some regulations, in both cases, was appa- 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



41 



tent : and, as there was no legislature with power over the 
'whole, nor any constitutional pre-eminence among the le- 
mslatures of tne several parts, it was natural for the legis- 
lature of that particular part which was the eldest and the 
largest to assume this function, and for the others to ac- 
quiesce in it. This tacit arrangement was the less cri noised, 
as the regulations established by the British Parliament 
operated in favour of that part of tne empire which seemed 
to bear the principal share of the public burdens, and were 
regarded as an indemnification of its advances for the 
other parte. As long as this regulating power was confined 
to the two objects of conveniency ana equity, it was not 
complained o£ nor much inquired into. But, no sooner 
was it perverted to the selfish views of the party assuming 
h, than the injured parties began to feel and to reflect; and, 
the moment the claim to a direct and indefinite power was 
Ingrafted on the precedent of the regulating power, the 
whole charm was dissolved, and every eye opened to the 
usurpation. The assertion by Great Britain of a power to 

I make laws for the other members of the empire in all cases 
whatsoever, ended in the discovery that she had a right to 
make laws for mem in ho cases whatsoever. 

Such being the ground of our Revolution, no support nor 
colour can be drawn from it for the doctrine that tne com- 
mon law is binding on these States as one society. The 
doctrine, on the contrary, is evidently repugnant to the 
fundamental principle of the Revolution. 

The Articles of Confederation are the next source of in- 
formation on this subject 

In the interval between the commencement of the Re- 
volution and the final ratification of these Articles, the 
nature and extent of the Union was determined by the 
circumstances of the crisis, rather than by any accurate 
delineation of the general authority. It will not be alleged 
mat the ** common law" could nave had any legitimate 
birth as a law of the United States during that state of 
tilings. If it came as such into existence at all, the Charter 
of Confederation must have been its .parent 

Here again, however, its pretensions are absolutely desti- 
tute of foundation. This instrument does not contain a sen- 
tence or a syllable that can bo tortured into a countenance 
of the idea that the parties to it were, with respect to the 
objects of the common law, to form one community. No 
such law is named, or implied, or alluded to, as being in 
force, or as brought into force by that compact No provi- 
sion is made by which such a law could be carried into 
operation ; whilst, on the other hand, every such inference 
or pretext is absolutely precluded by article 2, which de- 
clares " that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, 
and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and 
right, which is not by this Confederation expressly dele- 
gated to the United States in Congress assembled. 

Thus far it appears that not a vestige of this extraordinary 
doctrine can be found in the origin or progress of American 
institutions. The evidence against it has, on the contrary, 
grown stronger at every step, till it has amounted to a for- 
mal and positive exclusion, by written articles of compact 
among the parties concerned. 

Is mis exclusion revoked, and the common law intro- 
duced as national law, by the present Constitution of the 
United States? This is the final question to be examined. 

It is readily admitted mat particular parts of the common 
law may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as 
they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases 
which express the powers delegated to die Government; 
and so far also as such other parts may be adopted by 
Congress as necessary and proper for carrying into execu- 
tion the powers expressly delegated. But the question 
does not relate to either of these portions of the common 
law. It relates to the common law beyond these limitations. 

The only part of the ConstituUon which seems to have 
been relied on in this case, is the 2d section of Article III : 
* ITie Judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and 
entity, arising under tits Constitution, the laws of the 
United States, and Treaties made er which shall be made 
under their authority. M 

It has been asked, what cases, distinct from those arising 
under the laws and treaties of the United States, can arise 
under me Constitution, other than those arising under the 
common law ; and it is inferred that the common law is 
accordingly adopted or recognised by the Constitution. 

Never, perhaps, was so broad a construction applied to a 
text so clearly unsusceptible of it If any colour for the 
inference could be found, h must be in the impossibility of 
Qadmg any other eases in law and equity, within the pro- 



visions of the Constitution, to satisfy the expression; and* 
rather than resort to a construction affecting so essentially 
the whole character of the government, it would perhaps 
be more rational to consider the expression as a mere pleo- 
nasm or inadvertence. But it is not necessary to decide 
on such a dilemma. The expression is fully satisfied, and 
its accuracy justified, by two descriptions of cases to which 
the judicial authority is extended, and neither of which 
implies that the common law is the law of the United- 
States. One of these descriptions comprehends the cases 
growing out of the restrictions on the Legislative power of 
Die States. Forexample,itis provided that " no State shall 
emit bills of credit," or " make any thing but gold and silver 
coin a tender in payment of debts.'' Should this prohibition be 
violated, and a suit between citizens of the same Slate be the 
consequence, this would be a case arising under the Con- 
stitution before the Judicial power of the United States. 
A second description comprehends suits between citizens 
and foreigners, of citizens of different States, to be decided 
according to the State or foreign-laws : but submitted by the 
ConstituUon to the Judicial power of the United States; 
the Judicial power being, in several instances, extended ' 
beyond the Legislative power of the United States. 

To this explanation of the text, the following observa- 
tions may be added : 

The expression M cases in law and equity," is manifestly 
confined to cases of a civil nature ; and would exclude ■ 
cases of criminal jurisdiction. Criminal cases in law and 
equity would be a language unknown to the law. 

TTie succeeding paragraph of the same section is in har- 
mony with this construction. It is in tnese words : " In all 
cases affecting Ambassadors, or other public Ministers, 
and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, 
the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all 
the other cases [including cases of law and equity arising 
under the Constitution] the Supreme Court shall nave ap* 
peUate jurisdiction both as to law and fact ; with such excep- 
tions, and under such regulations, as Congress shall make." 

This paragraph, by expressly giving an appellate juris- 
diction, m cases of law and equity arising under the Con- 
stitution, to fact as well as to law, clearly excludes criminal 
cases, where the trial by Jury is secured ; because the tact 
in such cases, is not a subject of appeal. And, although 
the appeal is liable to such exceptions and regulations as 
Congress may adopt yet it is not to be supposed that an 
exception of all criminal cases could be contemplated ; aa 
well because a discretion in Congress to make or omit the 
exception would be improper, as because it would have 
been unnecessary. The exception could as easily have 
been made by the Constitution itself, as referred to the 
Congress. 

Once more ; the amendment last added to the Confuta- 
tion deserves attention, as throwing light on this subject : 
" The Judicial power of the United States shall not be con- 
strued to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced 
or prosecuted against one of the United States, by citizens 
of another State, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign 
Power. " As it will not be pretended that any criminal 
proceeding could take place against a State ; the terms law 
or equity must be understood as appropriate to civil, in ex- 
clusion of criminal, esses. 



the Constitution, even if it could be applied 



From these considerations, it is evident that this part of 

. plied at all to the 
purpose for which it has been cited, would not include any 



cases whatever of a criminal nature ; and, consequently, 
would not authorize the inference from it that the Judicial 
authority extends to offences against the common law, as 
offences arising under the Constitution. 

It is further to be considered, that, even if this part of the 
Constitution could be strained into an application to every 
common law case, criminal as well as civil, it could have 
no effect in justifying the Sedition Act ; which is an exer- 
cise of Legislative, and not of Judicial power : and it is the 
Judicial power, only, of which the extent is defined in this 
part of the Constitution. 

There are two passages in the Constitution, in which a 
description of the law of the United States is found. The 
first is contained m Article III, Section 2, in the words fol- 
lowing : " This Constitution, the laws of the United States- 
and treaties made or which shall be made under this au- 
thority. " The second is contained in the second paragraph 
of Article VI, as follows : u This Constitution, and the laws 
df the United States whiuh shall be made in pursuance 
thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made un- 
der the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme 



42 



TUB EXAMINER, 



law of the land. H The first of those description! was 
meant at a guide to the Judges of the United States : the 
second as a guide to the Judges of the several States. Both 
of them consist of an enumeration which was evidently 
meant to be precise and complete. If the common law 
had been understood to be a law of (he United States, it is 
not possible to assign a satisfactory reason why it was not 
expressed in the enumeration. 

In aid of these objections, the difficulties and confusion 
Inseparable from a constructive introduction of the common 
law would afford powerful reasons against it 

Is it to be the common law with or without the British 
Statutes? 

If without the statutory amendments, the vices of the 
code would be insupportable. 

If with these amendments, what penod is to be fixed tor 
limitin g the British authority over our laws f 

Is it to be the date of the eldest or the youngest of the 
colonies t 

Or are the dates to be thrown togother, and a medium 
deduced? 

Of is our independence to be taken for the date ? 

Is, again, regard to be had to the various changes in the 
common law made by the local codes of America ? 

Is regard to be had to such changes subsequent as well 
as prior to the establishment of the Constitution ? 

Is regard to be had to future as well as past changes ? 

Is the law to be different in every Slate, as differently 
modified by its code ; or are the modifications of any par- 
ticular State to be applied to all ? 

And on the latter supposition, which among the State 
codes would form the standard ? 

Questions of this sort might be multiplied with as much 
ease as there would be difficulty in answering them. 

The consequences flowing from the proposed construction 
furnish other objections equally conclusive unless the text 
were peremptory in its meaning, and consistent with other 
parts of the instrument 

These consequences may be in relation to the Legislative 
authority of the United States; to the Executive authority; 
to the Judicial authority ; and to the Governments of the 
several States. 

If it be understood that the common law is established 
by the Constitution, it follows that no part of the law can 
be altered by the Legislature ; such of the statutes, already 
passed, as may be repugnant thereto, would be nullified ; 
particularly the " Sedition Act " itselC which boasts of be- 
ing a melioration of the common law ; and the whole code, 
With all its incongruities, barbarisms, and bloody maxims, 
would be inviolably saddled on the good people of the 
United States. 

• ShsmH this consequence be rejected, and the common law 
be*held, like other laws, liable to revision and alteration 
by the authority of Congress, it then follows that the 
authority of Congress is co-extensive with the objects of 
common law ; that is to say, with every object of legisla- 
tion : For to every such omect does some branch or other 
of the common law extend. The authority of Congress 
would, therefore, be no longer under the limitations marked 
out in the Constitution. They would be authorized to le- 
gislate in all cases whatsoever. 

In the next place, as the President possesses the execu- 
tive powers or the Constitution, and is to see' that the laws 
be faithfully executed, his authority also must be co-exten- 
sive with every branch of the common law. The additions 
which this would make to his power, though not readily to 
be estimated, claim the most serious attention. 

This is not all ; it will merit the most profound consi- 
deration, how far an indefinite admission of the common 
law, with a latitude in construing it equal to the construc- 
tion by which it is deduced from the Constitution, might 
draw after it the various prerogatives making part of tne 
unwritten law of England. The English Constitution itself 
is nothing more than a composition of unwritten laws and 



In the third place, whether the common law be admitted 
as of legal or of constitutional obligation, it would confer 
on the Judicial department a discretion little short of a le- 
gislative power 

On the supposition of its having a constitutional obliga- 
tion, this power in the Judges would be permanent and ir- 
remediable by the Legislature. On the other supposition, 
the power would not expire until the Legislature should 
have introduced a full system of statutory pro visions. Let 
Ube observed, too, that, betides all the uncertainties above 



enumerated, and which present an immense field for judi- 
cial discretion, it would remain with the same department 
to decide what parts of the common law would, and what 
would not, be properly applicable to the circumstances of 
the United States. 

A discretion of this sort has always been lamented as in- 
congruous and dangerous, even in the Colonial and State 
courts : although so much narrowed by positive provisions 
in the local codes on all the principal subjects embraced by 
the common law. Under the United States, where so few 
laws exist on those 'subjects, and where so great a lapse of 
time must happen before the vast chasm could be supplied, 
it is manifest mat the power of the Judges over the law 
would, in met, erect diem into legislators ; and that for a long 
time it would be impossible for the citizens to conjecture 
either what was or would be law. 

In the last place, the consequence of admitting the com- 
mon law as the law of the United States, on me authority 
of the individual States, is as obvious as it would be fatal. 
As mis law relates to every subject of legislation, and 
would be paramount to the Constitutions ana laws of the 
States, the admission of it would overwhelm the residuary 
sovereignty of the States, and by one constructive opera- 
tion, new-model the whole political fabric of the country. 

From the review thus taken of the situation of the Ame- 
rican colonies prior to their independence ; of the effect of 
this event on tneir situation ; of the nature and import of 
the Articles of Confederation ; of the true meaning of the 
passage, in the existing Constitution, from which the 
common law has been deduced ; of the difficulties ana 
uncertainties incident to the doctrine ; and of its vast conse- 
quences in extending the powers of the Federal Govern- 
ment, and in superseding the authorities of the State Go- 
vernments ; the Committee feel the utmost confidence in' 
concluding that the common law never was, nor by any 
fair construction ever can be, deemed a law for the Ame- 
rican People, as one community ; and they indulge die 
strongest expectation that the same conclusion will finally 
be drawn by all candid and accurate inquirers into the 
subject It is, indeed, distressing to reflect that it ever 
should have been ms/e a question whether the Constitu- 
tion, on the whole face of which is seen so much labour to 
enumerate and define the several objects of Federal power, 
could intend to introduce in the lump, in an indirect man- 
ner, and by a forced construction of a few phrases, the vast 
and multifarious jurisdiction involved in the common law ; 
a law filling so many ample volumes ; a law overspreading 
the entire field of legislation ; and a law that would sap the 
foundation of the Constitution as a system of limited and 
specified rowers. A severer reproach could not, in the 
opinion or the Committee, be thrown on the Constitution, 
on those who framed, or on those who established it, than 
such a supposition would throw on them. 

The argument, then, drawn from the common law, on 
the ground of its being adopted or recognised by the Con- 
stitution, being inapplicable to the Sedition Act, the Com- 
mittee will proceed to examine the other arguments which 
have been founded on the Constitution. 

ITiey will waste but little time on the attempt to cover 
the Act by the preamble to the Constitution ; it being con- 
trary to every acknowledged rule of construction to set up 
this part of an instrument in opposition to the plain mean- 
ing expressed in the body of the instrument. A preamble 
usually contains the general motives or reasons for the par- 
ticular regulations or measures which follow it : ana is 
always understood to be explained and limited by them. In 
the present ineSance, a contrary interpretation would have 
the inadmissible effect of rendering nugatory or improper 
every part of the Constitution which succeeds the preamble 

The paragraph in Article I, Section 8, which contains 
the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and ex- 
cises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common^efonoa 
and general welfare, having been already examined, will 
also require no particular attention in this place. It will 
have been seen that, in its four and consistent meaning, it 
cannot enlarge the enumerated powers vested in Congress. 

The part of the Constitution which seems most to be re- 
curred to in the defence of the M Sedition Act," is the last 
clause of the above section, empowering Congress M to make 
all laws which shall be necessary ana proper for carrying 
into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers 
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United 
States, or in any department or officer thereof." 
• The plain import of this clause is, that Congress shall 
have all the incidental or instrumental po wen necessary ansl 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



48 



proper for carrying into execution all the express powers ; 
whether taey be vested in the government of the United 
States, more collectively, or in me several departments or 
officers thereof! It is not a grant of new powers to Con- 
gress, but merely a declaration, lor the removal of all un- 
certainty, that the means of carrying into execution those 
otherwise gtanted are included in the grant 

Whenever, therefore, a question arises concerning the 
constitutionality of a particular power, the first question is 
whether the power be expressed in the Constitution. If 
H be, the q u e st ion is deckled. If it be not expressed, the 
next inquiry mast be, whether it m properly an incident to 
an express power, and necessary to its execution. If it be, 
it may be exercised by Congress. If it be not, Congress 
cannot exercise it. 

Let the question be asked, then, whether the power over 
me press, exercised in the u Sedition Act," be found among 
the powers expressly vested in the Congress ? This is not 
pretended. 

is there any express power, for executing which, it is a 
n ecess a ry ana proper power ? 

The power which has been selected, as least remote, in 
answer to this question, is that " of suppressing insurrec- 
tions;" which is said to imply a power to prevent insur- 
rections, by pumshmg whatever may lead or tend to them 
Bat it surely cannot, with the least plausibility, be said 
mat the regulation of the press, and a punishment of libels, 
are exercises of a power to suppress insurrections. The 
most that could be said, would be, that the punishment of 
libels, if it had the tendency ascribed to it, might prevent 
the occasion of passing or executing laws necessary and 
proper for the suppression of insurrections. 

lias the Federal Government no power, then, to prevent 
as well as to punish resistance to me laws? 

ITiey.have the power which the Constitution deemed 
most proper in their hands for the purpose. The Congress 
has power, before it happens, to pass laws for punishing it; 
and the Executive and Judiciary have power to enforce 
those laws when it does happen. 

It must be recollected by many, and could be shown to 
i oTall, mat dm.cesstrucuon here put on the 
M necessary and proper," is precisely the construction 
i prevailed during the discussions and ratifications of 
me Constitution. It may bo added, and cannot too often 
be repeated, that it is a construction absolutely necessary 
to marntem their consistency with the peculiar character 
of the Government, as possessed of particular and definite 
n o we is only ; not of the general and indefinite powers vested 
m ordinary governments. For, if the power to suppress 
sssarreotiens includes a power to punish libels ; or if the 
power to punish includes a power to prevent, by all the 
means that may have that tendency, such is the relation and 
the most remote subjects of legislation, 



ta power over a very few would carry with ita power 
over aft. And it must be wholly immaterial whether un- 
limited powers be exercised under the name of unlimited 
powers, or fee exercised under the name of unlimited means 
of car ry ha g mto execution limited powers. 

This branch of the subject will be closed with a reflec- 
tion which must have weight with all ; but more especially 
with those who place peculiar reliance on the judicial ex- 
position of the Constitution, as the bulwark provided 
against undue extensions of the legislative power. If it be 
understood that the powers implied in the specified powers 
have an immediate and appropriate relation to them, as 
means necessary and proper for carrying them into execu- 
tion, questions on the constitutionality of laws passed for 
' Has purpose will be of a nature sufficiently precise and de- 
tsrnsmale for judicial cognisance and control. If, on the 
ether hand, Congress are not limited in the choice of means 
by any such appropriate relation of them to the specified 
powers, but may employ all such mean) they may deem 
fitted to prevent as well as topwRtsft crimes subjected to tbeir 
authority—such as may have a tendency only to promote 
an object for which they are authorized to provide— every 
one must perceive that questions relating to means of mis 
twt must be questions for mere policy and expediency, on 
which legislative discretion atone can decide, and from 
which the judicial interposition and control are completely 
excluded. 

II. Itoe next point which the resolution requires to be 
moved is, that the power over the press, exercised by the 
Sedition Act, is positively forbidden by one of the amend- 
■Mnts to the Ccfs^itutfon. 

Ttmaaendmemsisiiasm these words "Congress shall 



-make no law respecting an establishment of relkoen, or 
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the/tof 
dom of speech, or of the pre**; or the right of the people 
peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for 
a redress of grievances." 

In the attempts to vindicate the " Sedition Act," it has 
been contended, 1. That the " freedom of the press" is to 
be determined by the meaning of these terms in the com- 
mon law. 2. That the article supposes the power over the 
press to be in Congress, and prohibito them only from 
abridging the freedom allowed to it by the common law. 

Although it will be shown, on examining the second ol 
these positions, that the amendment is a denial to Congress 
of all power over the press, it maty- not be useless to make 
the following observations on the first of them. 

It is deemed to be a sound opinion, that the Sedition Act, 
in its definition of some of the crimes created, is an abridg- 
ment of the freedom of publication recognised by princi- 
ples of the common law in England. 

The freedom of the press, under the common law, to, in 
the defences of the Sedition Act, made to consist in an ex- 
emption from all previous restraint on printed pabfcdstions, 
by persons authorized to inspect and prohibit them. It ap- 
pears to the Committee that this idea of the freedom of the 
press can never be admitted to be the American idea of it, 
since a law inflicting penalties on printed publications 
w tjuld have a similar effect with a law authorizing a previ- 
ous restraint on them. It would seem a mockery to say 
that no laws should be passed preventing publications from 
being made, but that laws might be passed for punishing 
them in case they should be made. 

The essential difference between the British Govern- 
ment and the American Constitutions will place this sub- 
ject in the clearest light 

In the British Government, the danger of encroachments 
on the righto of the people is understood to be confined to 
the Executive Magistrate. The representatives of the 
people, in the legislature, are not only exempt themselves 
from distrust, but are considered as sufficient guardians of 
the rights of their constituents against the danger from the 
Executive. Hence it is a principle mat the Parliament is 

limited in its power ; or, in their own language, is omni- 
potent Hence, too, all the ramparts for protecting the rights 
of the people, such as their Magna Charts, their BtQ of 
Rights, &c n are not reared ogainst the Parliament, but 
against the royal prerogative. They are merely legislative 
precautions against Executive usurpations. Under such a 
Government as this, an exemption of the press from previ- 
ous restraint by licensers appointed by the King, is ail die 
freedom that can be secured to it 

. In the United States, the case is altogether different Tno • 
People, not the Government possess the absolute sovereign*! 
ty. The legislature, no less than the executive, is under' 
limitations of power. Encroachments are regarded as pos- 
sible from the one as well as from the other. Hence, in the 
United States, the great and essential righte of the people 
are secured against legislative as well as executive ambi- 
tion. They are secured, not by laws paramount to pieroaa- 1 
tive, but by Constitutions paramount to laws. This security 
of the freedom of the press requires that it should be ex* 
empt, not only from previous restraint by the executive, as 
in Great Britain, but from legislative restraint also, and tine 
exemption, to be effectual, must be an exemption, not only 
from the previous inspection of licenses, but from the sub- 
sequent penalty of laws. 

The state of the press, therefore, under the common law, 
cannot, in this point of view, be the standard of its freedom 
in the United States. 

But there is another view under which it may be neces- 
sary to consider this subject It may be alleged that a* 
though the security for the freedom ot the press ne different 
in Great Britain and in this country, being a legal security 
only in the former, and a constitutional security in the 
latter; and although there may be a further difference, in 
an extension of the freedom of the press, here, beyond an 
exemption from previous restraint ; to an exemption from 
subsequent penalties also ; yet that the actual legal free- 
dom of the press, under the common law, must determine 
the degree of freedom which is meant by the terms, and 
which nt constitutionally secured against both previous and 
subsequent restraints. 

The Committee are not unaware of the difficulty of all 
general questions which may turn on the proper boundary 
between the liberty and licentiousness of the press. They 
will leave it therefore, for consideration only, how far Urn 



44 



THH EXAMINER, 



/ 



Oifierenoe between the nature of the British Government 
end the nature of the American Governments, and the 
practice under the latter, may shew the degree of rigour 
m the farmer to be inapplicable to and not obligatory in the 
latter. 

# The nature of Governments elective, limited, and respon- 
sible, in all their branches, may well be supposed to require 
a greater freedom of animadversion, than might be tole- 
rated by the genius of such a Government as that of Great 
Britain. In the latter, it is a maxim that the King, an he- 
reditary, not a responsible magistrate, can do no wrong ; 
and that the Legislature, which in two thirds of its com- 
position is also hereditary, not responsible, can do what it 
pleases. In the United States, the executive magistrates 
are not held to be infallible, nor the Legislatures to' be om- 
nipotent; and, both being elective, are both responsible. 
Is it not natural and nee esse ry, under such different circum- 
stance*, that a different degree of freedom in the use of the 
press should be contemplated f 

Is not such an inference favoured by what is observable 
in Great Britain itself? Notwithstanding the general doc- 
trine of the common law on the subject of the press, and 
the occasional punishment of those who use it with a free- 
dom offensive to the Government, it is well known that 
with respect to the responsible members of the Govern- 
ment, where the reasons operating here become applicable 
there, the freedom exercised by the press, and protected oy 
public opinion, far exceeds the limits prescribed by the or- 
dinary rules of law. The ministry, wno are responsible to 
impeachment, are at all times animadverted on by the 
press with peculiar freedom; and, during the elections for 
the House of Commons, tho other responsible part of the 
Government, the press is employed with as litue reserve 
towards the candidates. 

ITie practice in America must be entitled to much more 
respect In every State, probably, in the Union, the press 
has exerted a freedom in canvassing the merits and mea- 
sures of public men, of every description, which has not 
been confined to the strict limits of the common law. On 
this footing the freedom of the press has stood ; on this 
foundation it yet stands. And it will not be a breach, 
either of truth or of candour, to say, that no persons or pr e ss es 
are in the habit of more unrestrained animadversions on 
tile proceedings and functionaries of the Stale Govern- 
ments, than the persons and presses most -zealous in vindi- 
cating the Act or Congress tor punishing similar animad- 
versions on the Government of the United States. 

The la»t remarkrwill not be understood as claiming for 
die State Governments an immunity greater than they 
have heretofore enjoyed. Some degree of abuse is insepa- 
rable from the proper use of every thing; and in no instance 
is this more true than in that of the press. It has accord- 
ingly been decided, by the practice of the States, that it is 
better to leave a few of its noxious branches to their luxu- 



riant growth, than, by pruning them away, to injure the 
vigour of those yielding the proper fruits. And can the 
wisdom of this policy be doubted by any one who reflects 
that to the press alone, chequered as it is with abuses, the 
world is indebted for all tne triumphs which have been 
gained, by reason and humanity, over error ami-oppression; 
who reflect that to the same beneficent source tne United 
States owe much of the lights which conducted them to 
the ranks of a free and independent nation, and which have 
improved their political system into a shape so auspicious 
to their happiness. Had u Sedition Acts," forbidding every 
publication that might bring the constituted agente into 
contempt or disrepute, or that might excite the hatred of 
the people against the authors of unjust or pernicious 
measures, been uniformly enforced against the press, might 
not the United States have been languishing at this day 
under the infirmities of a sickly Confederation ? Might 
they not, possibly, be miserable colonies, groaning under a 
foreign yoke? 

To these observations one met will be added, which de- 
monstrates that the common law cannot be admitted as the 
universal expositor of American terms, which may be the 
same with those contained in that law. The freedom of 
conscience and of religion are found i it the same instruments 
which assert the freedom of the press. It will never be 
admi t ted that the meaning of the former, in the common law 
of England, is to limit their meaning in the United States. 

Whatever weight may be allowed to these considera- 
tions, the Committee do not, however, by any means intend 
to rest the question on them. They contend that the arti- 
els of the amendment, instead of supposing in Congress a 



power that might be exercised over the press, provided its 
freedom was not abridged, was meant as a positive denial 
to Congress of any power whatever on the subject 

To demonstrate that this was the true object of the arti- 
cle, it will be sufficient to recall the circumstances which 
led to it, and to refer to the explanation accompanying the 
article. 

When the Constitution was under the discussions which 
preceded its ratification, it is well known, that great appre- 
hensions were expressed by many, lest the omission of 
some positive exception from the powers delegated, of cer- 
tain rights, and or the freedom of the press particularly, 
might expose them to the danger of being drawn, by con- 
struction, within some of the powers vested in Congress ; 
more especially of the power to make all laws necessary 
and proper for carrying their other powers into execution. 
In reply to this objection, it^was invariably urged to be a 
fundamental and characteristic principle of the Constitu- 
tion, that all powers not given by it were reserved ; that 
no powers were given beyond tnose enumerated in the 
Constitution, and such as were fairly incident to them; 
mat the power over the rights in question, and particularly 
over the press, was neither among the enumerated powers, 
nor incident k to any of them ; and, consequently, that an 
exercise of any sucn power would be manifest usurpation. 
It is painful to remark how much the arguments now em- 
ployed in behalf of the Sedition Act are at variance with 
the reasoning which then justified the Constitution and in- 
vited its ratification. 

From this posture of the subject resulted the interesting 

Suestion, in so many of the Conventions, whether the 
oubts and dangers ascribed to the Constitution should be 
removed by any amendments previous to the ratification, 
or be postponed, in confidence that, as far as they might be 
proper, they would be introduced in the form provided by 
the Constitution. The latter course was adopted ; and in 
most of the States ratifications were followed by proposi- 
tions and instructions for rendering the Constitution more 
explicit, and more safe to the rights not meant to be dele- 
gated by it Among those rights, the freedom of the press, 
in most instances, is particularly and emphatically men- 
tioned. The firm and very pointed manner in which it is 
asserted in the proceedings of the Convention of this State, 
will be hereafter seen. 

In pursuance of the wishes thus expressed, the first Con- 
gress that assembled under the Constitution proposed certain 
amendments, which nave since, by the necessary ratifica- 
tions, been made a part of it ; among which amendments 
is the article containing, among other prohibitions on the 
Congress, an express declaration that they should make no 
law abridging the freedom of the press. 

Without tracing farther the evidence on this subject, it 
would seem scarcely possible to doubt that no power what- 
ever over the press was supposed to be delegated by the 
Constitution as it originally stood, and that the amendment 
was intended as a positive and absolute reservation of it 

But the evidence is still stronger. The proposition of 
amendments made by Congress is introduced in the follow- 
ing terms: 

a The Conventions s/ a number of the States having at the 
time of their adopting the c on s ti tu ti on expressed a desire, in 
order to prevent misconstructions or abuse of its powers, that 
further declaratory and restrictive douses should be added; 
and, as extending- the ground of public confidence in the 
Go v e rnmen t, wiubest insure the beneficent ends of its institu- 
tions." 

Here is the most satisfactory and authentic proof that 
the several amendments proposed were to be considered as 
either declaratory or restrictive, and whether the one or 
the other, as corresponding with the desire e xpr es se d by a 
number of the Stares, and as extending the ground of pub- 
lic confidence in the Government 

Under any other construction of the amendment relating 
to the press, than that it declared the press to be wholly 
exempt from the power of Congress, the amendment could 
neither be said to correspond with the desire expressed by 
a number of the States, nor be calculated to extend the 
ground of public confidence in the Government 

Nay more; the construction employed to justify the 
"Sedition Act" would exhibit a phenomenon without a 
parallel in the political world It would exhibit a number 
of respectable States, as denying, first that any power over 
the press was delegated by the Constitution : as proposing, 
next, that an amendment to it should explicitly oeelare 
thai no such power was delegated; and, finally, as concur- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



45 



rms in an amendment actually recognising or delegating 
men a power. 

It, then, die Federal Government, it will be asked, des- 
titute of every authority for restraining the licentiousness 
of the press, and for shielding itself against the libellous 
attacks which may be made on those who administer it f 

Tne Constitution alone can answer this question. If no 
such power be expressly delegated, and if it be not both 
necessary and proper to carry into execution an express 
power ; above all, if it be expressly forbidden, by a decla- 
ratory amendment to the Constitution, the answer must 
be, that the Federal Government is destitute of all such au- 
thority. 

And might it not be asked, in turn, whether it is not more 
probable, under all the circumstances which have been 
reviewed, that the authority should be withheld by the 
Constitution, than that it should be left to a vague and vio- 
lent construction, whilst so much pains were bestowed in 
enumerating other powers, and so many less important 
powers are mcluded in the enumeration f 

Might it not be likewise asked, whether the anxious 
circumspection which dictated so many peculiar limitations 
on the general authority, would be unlikely to exempt the 
press altogether from that authority? The peculiar mag- 
nitude of some of the powers necessarily committed to the 
Federal Government; the peculiar duration required for 
the functions of some of its deportments; the peculiar dis- 
tance of the seat of its proceedings from the great body of 
its constituents ; and the peculiar difficulty of circulating 
an adequate knowledge or them through any other chan- 
nel ; will not these considerations, some or other of which 
produced other exceptions from the powers of ordinary 
Governments, altogether, account for the policy of binding 
the hand of the Federal Government from touching; the 
channel which alone can give efficacy to its responsibility 
to its constituents, and of leaving those who administer a 
remedy, for their injured reputations, under the same laws 
and in the same tribunals which protect their lives, their 
liberties, and their properties? 

But the question does not turn either on the wisdom of 
the Constitution, or on the policy which gave rise to its 
particular organization. It turns on the actual meaning of 
me instrument, by which it has appeared that a power over 
die press is clearly excluded from the number of powers 
delegated to the Federal Government 

n£ And, in the opinion of the Committee, well may it be 
said, as the Resolution concludes with saying, that the un- 
constitutional power exercised over the press by the u Se- 
dition Act," ought, M more than any other, to produce uni- 
versal alarm ; because it is levelled against mat right of 
freely examining public characters and measures, and of 
tree communication among the people thereon, which has 
ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of 
every other right" 

Without scrutinizing minutely into all the provisions of 
the " Sedition Act" it will be sufficient to cite so much of 
section 2, as follows ;— » And be it further enacted, that if 
any person shall ,, write, print, utter, 01 publish, or shall 
cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or pub- 
lished, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in 
writing, printing, uttering, or publishing, any false, scanda- 
lous, and malicious writing or writings against the Govern- 
ment of the United States, or either House of the Congress 
of the United States, with an intent to defame the said 
Government, or either House of the $aid Congress, or the 
. President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt 
or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of 
them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, $c. 
Then such person, being thereof convicted before any Court 
of the Untied States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be 
va n ishe d by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and 
by impri s o nment not exceeding two years.** 

On this part of the Act, the following observations pre- 
sent themselves : 

1. The Constitution supposes that the President the Con- 
gress, and each of its Houses, may not discharge their 
trusts, either from defect of judgment or other causes. 
Ilence, they are all made responsible to their constituents 
at the returning periods of election ; and the President who 
is singly intrusted with very great powers, is, as a further 
guard; subjected to an intermediate impeachment 

2. Should it happen, as the Constitution supposes it may 
happen, that either of these branches of the Government 
may not have duly discharged its trust it is natural and 
proper that according to the cause and degree of their 



faults, they should be brought into contempt or 
and incur the hatred of the people. 

3. Whether it has, in any case, happened that the pro- 
ceedings of either or all of those branches evinces stum a 
violation of duty as to justify a contempt, a disrepute, or 
hatred, among the people, can only be determined by a free 
examination thereof, and a free communication amnng the 
people thereon. 

4. Whenever it may have actually happened that pro- 
ceedings of this sort are chargeable on all or either of the 
branehes of the Government it is the duty ss well as right 
of intelligent and faithful citizens to discuss and ptomujge 
them freely, as well to control them by the censorship of 
the public opinion, as to promote a remedy according to 
the rules of the Constitution. And it cannot be avoided 
that those who are to apply the remedy must feel, in some 
degree, a contempt or hatred against the transgressing party. 

5. As the Act was passed on July 14, 1798, and is to be 
in force until March 3, 1801, it was, of course, that, during 
its continuance, two elections of the entire House of Re- 
presentatives, an election of a part of the Senate, and an 
election of a President were to take place. 

6. That consequently, during all these elections, intend- 
ed by the Constitution to preserve the purity or to purge the 
faults of the Administration, the great remedial rights of the 
people were to be exercised, and the responsibility of their 
public agents to be screened, under the penalties of this 
Act 

May it not be asked of every intelligent friend to the 
liberties of his country, whether the power exercised in 
such an Act as this ought not to produce great and univer- 
sal alarm ? Whether a rigid execution of such an Act, in 
time past would not have repressed that information and 
communication among the people which is indispensable 
to the just exercise oftheir electoral rights T And whether 
such an Act if made perpetual and enforced with rigour* 
would not in time to come, either destroy our free intern 
of Government or prepare a convulsion that might prove 
equally fatal to it? 

In answer to such questions, it has been pleaded that the 
writings and publications forbidden by the Act are those 
only which are false and malicious, and intended to defame; 
ana merit is claimed for the privilege allowed to authors 
to justify, by proving the truth of their publications, and 
for the limitations to which the sentence of fine and impri- 
sonment is subjected. 

To those who concurred in the Act under the extraordi- 
nary belief that the optiou lay between the passing of such 
an Act and leaving in force the common law of libels, 
which punishes truth equally with falsehood, and submits 
the fine and imprisonment to the indefinite discretion of the 
court the merit of good intentions ought surely not to be 
refused. A like merit may perhaps be due for the discon- 
tinuance of the corporal punishment, which the common 
law also leaves to the discretion of the court. This merit 
of intention, however, would have been greater, if the se- 
veral mitigations had not been limited to so short a period ; 
and the apparent inconsistency would have been avoided, 
between justifying the Act at one time, by contrasting it 
with the rigours of the common law, otherwise in force, and 
at another time by appealing to the nature of the crisis, as 

miring the temporary rigour exerted by the Act 

But whatever may have been the meritorious intentions 
of all or any who contributed to the Sedition Act, a very 
few reflections will prove that its baleful tendency is little 
diminished by the privilege of giving in evidence the truth 
of the matter contained in political writings. 

In the first place, where simple and naked facts alone are 
in question, there is sufficient difficulty in some cases, and 
sufficient trouble and vexation in all, of meeting a prosecu- 
tion from the Government with the full and formal proof 
necessary in a court of law. 

But in the next place, it must bo obvious, to the plainest 
minds, that opinions and inferences, and conjecturalobser- 
vations, are not only in many cases inseparable from die 
facts, but may often be more the objects of the prosecution 
than the facts themselves ; or may even be altogether ab- 
stracted from particular facts; and that opinions and infer- 
ences, and conjectural observations, cannot be subjects of 
that kind of proof which appertains to facts, before a court 
of law. . 

Again : it is no less obvious that the intent to defame or 
bring into contempt or disrepute, or hatred, which is made 
a condition of the oflence created by the Act cannot pre- 
vent its pernicious influence on the freedom of the j 



4* 



THE EXAMINER, 



Ptot anHtinglfee inquiry how far the malice of the intent 
is an inference of the law from the mere publication, it is 
manifestly impossible to punish the intent to bring those 
who administer the Government into disrepute or contempt, 
without striking si the right of freely discussing public 
characters and measures : because those who engage in 
stick discussions must expect and intend to excite these un- 
favourable sentiments, so far as they may be thought to be 
deserved. 7b prohibit the intent to excite those unfavourable 
sentiments against those who administer the Government, 
is equivalent to a prohibition of the actual excitement of 
them; and, to prohibit the actual excitement of them, is 
equivalent to a prohibition of discussions having that ten- 
dency and effect ; which, again, is equivalent to a protection 
of those who administer the Government, if they should at 
any time deserve the contempt or hatred of the people, 
against being exposed to it by free animadversions on their 
characters and conduct Nor can there be a doubt, if those 
hi public trust be shielded by penal laws from such strict^ 
ores of the press as may expose them to contempt or disre- 
pute, or hatred, where they may deserve it, that, in exact 
proportion as they may deserve to be exposed, will be the 
certainty and criminality of the intent to expose thorn and 
the vigilance of prosecuting and punishing it; nor a doubt 
mat a Government thus intrenched in penal statutes, 
against the just and natural effects of a culpable adminis- 
tration, will easily evade the responsibility which is essen- 
tial to a fiuthful discharge of its duty. 

Let it be recollected, lastly, that the right of electing the 
members of the Government constitutes more particularly 
the essence of a free and responsible Government. The 
value and efficacy of this right depends on the knowledge 
of the comparative merits and demerits of the candidates 
for public trust, and on the equal freedom, consequently, of 
examining and discussing these merits and demerits of the 
candidates respectively It has been seen that a number 
of important elections will take place while the Act is in 
force, although it should not be continued beyond the term 
to which it is limited. Should there happen, then, as is ex- 
tremely probable in relation to some or other of the branch- 
es of the Government, to bo competitions between those 
who are and those who are not members of the Govern- 
ment, what will be the situations of the competitors ? Not 
anal ; because the characters of the former will be cover- 
, by the " Sedition Act," from animadversions exposing 
them to disrepute among the people ; whilst the latter may 
he exposed to the contempt and hatred of the people, with- 
out a violation of the Act. What will be the situation of 
the people? Not free : because they will be compelled to 
make their election between competitors whose pretensions 
they are not permitted, by the Act, equally to examine, to 
discuss, and to ascertain. And from both these situations 
will not those in power derive an undue advantage for 
continuing themselves in it ; which, by impairing the right 
of election, endangers the blessingB of the Government 
founded on it? 

It is with justice, therefore, that the General Assembly 
have affirmed, in the resolution, as well that the right of 
freely examining public characters and measures, and of 
communication thereon, is the only effectual guardian of 
every other right; us that this particular right is levelled at 
by the power exercised in the " Sedition Act" 

SIXTH RESOLUTION. 

Ihe resolution next in order is as follows : 

" TTiat this State having, by its Convention which ratified 
the Federal Constitution, expressly declared, that among 
ether nesonfinl rights, ' the lioerty of conscience and ef the 
press cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained or modified, 
by any authority of the United Slates,' and, from its ex- 
treme anxiety to guard these righto from every possible at- 
' tack of sophistry and ambition, having, with other States, 
recommended an amendment for that purpose, which 
amendment was, in due time, annexed to the Constitution : 
it would mark a reproachful inconsistency, and criminal 
degeneracy, if an indifference were now shown to the 
most palpable violation of one of the righto thus declared 
and secured, and to the establishment of a. precedent which 
may be fatal to the other." 

To place this resolution in its Just light, it will be neces- 
sary to recur to the act of ratification by Virginia, which 
stands in the ensuing form: 

M We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, duly elect- 
ed in pursuance of a recommendation from the General 
Assembly, and now met in Convention, having fully and 
freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the 



Federal Convention, and being prepared as well as the 
most mature deliberation hath enabled us, to decide there- 
on ; DO, in the name and in behalf of the People, of Vir- 
ginia, declare and make known that the powers granted 
under the Constitution, being derived from the People of 
the United States, may be resumed by them whensoever 
the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression; 
and that every power not granted thereby remains with 
them and at their will. Tnat, therefore, no right of any 
denomination can be cancelled, abridged, restrained, or 
modified, by the Congress, by the Senate or House of Re- 
presentatives acting m any capacity, by the President, or 
any department or officer of the United States, except in 
those instances in which power is given by the Constitution 
for those purposes ; and that among other essential rights, 
the liberty of conscience and of the press cannot be cancel- 
led, abridged, restrained, or modified by any authority of 
the Unitea States." 

Here is an express and solemn declaration, by the Con' 
vention of the State, that they ratified the Constitution ra- 
the sense that no right of any denomination can be cancel- 
led, abridged, restrained or modified, by the Government 
of the United States, or any part of it, except in those in- 
stances in which power is given by the Constitution ; and 
in the sense, particularly, "that, among other essential 
rights, the liberty of conscience and freedom of the press 
cannot be cancelled, abridged, restrained* or modified, bar 
any authority of the Unitea States." 

Words could not well express, in.a fuller or more forci- 
ble manner, the understanding of the Convention that the 
liberty of conscience and the freedom of the press were 
equally and completely exempted from aU authority what- 
ever of the United States. 

Under an anxiety to guard more effectually these rights 
against every possible danger, the Convention, after ratify- 
ing the Constitution, proceeded to prefix to certain amend- 



ments proposed by them a declaration of rights, in which 
are two articles, providing, the one for the liberty of con- 
science, the other for the freedom of speech ana of the 
press. 

Similar recommendations having proceeded from a nam- . 
ber of other States, and Congress, ss has been seen, having; 
in consequence thereof) and with a view to extend the 
ground of public confidence, proposed, among other decla- 
ratory and restrictive clauses, a clause expressly securing 
the Liberty of conscience and of the press, ana Virginia 
having concurred in the ratifications which made them a 
part of the Constitution, it will remain with a candid public 
to decide whether it would not mark an inconsistency and 
degeneracy if an indifference were now shown to a palps* 
ble violation of one of those rights, the freedom of the 
press : and to a precedent, therein, which may be fatal to 
the other, the free exercise of religion. 

That the precedent established by the violation of the 
former of these rights, may, as is affirmed by the resolutioxv 
be fatal to tho latter, appears to be demonstrable, by a com- 
parison of the grounds on which they respectively rests 
and from the scope of reasoning by whioh the power of the 
former has been vindicated. 

First Both of these rights, the liberty of conscience and 
of the press, rest equally on the original ground of not bee 
ing delegated by the Constitution, and consequently with- 
held from the Government Any construction, therefore* 
that would attack this original security for the one, moat 
have the like effect on the other. 

Secondly. They are both equally secured by the supple* 
ment to the Constitution ; being both included in the same 
amendment, made at the same time, and by the same au- 
thority. Any construction or argument, then, which would 
turn the amendment into a grant or acknowledgment of 
power with respect to the press, might be equally applied 
to the freedom of religion. 

Thirdly. If it be admitted that the extent of the freedom 
of the press secured by the amendment, to to bo laoasurcd 
by the common law on this subject, the same authority may 
be resorted to for the standard which to to fix me extent of 
the "free exercise of religion." It cannot be n e o o a s ar y to 
say what this standard would be, whether the common 
law be taken solely as the unwritten, or as varied by the 
written, law of England. 

FonrtAly. If the words and phrases in the amendment 
are to be considered as chosen with a studied c" "— — 



lion, which yields an argument for a power over the press, 
under the limitation that its freedom he not abridged ; the 
sadfe argument results, from the same eonsideratam. for a 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



4ff 



power ojrer the exercise of religion, under Hit l im itatio n 
Sat in freedom be not prohibited. 

For, if Congress may regulate the freedom of the press, 
provided they do not abridge it, because it is said only 
"they shall not abridge it," and is not said * they shau 
make no law respecting it;" the analogy of reasoning is 
conclusive, that Congress may nartifafc and even abridge 
the free exercise of religion, provided they do notjtrohunt 
it ; because it is said only " they shaft not prohibit it;" and 
is not said "they shall make no law respecting or no law 

The General Assembly were governed by the clearest 
goaeon. then, m considering the "Sedition Act,** which 
Isejenatee on the freedom of the press, as establishing a 
precedent that may be fetal to the liberty of conscience : 
and it will be the duty of all, in proportion as they value 
the security of the latter, to take the alarm at every en- 
emchment on the former 

SEVENTH AND 1IGHTH RESOLUTIONS. 

The two concluding resolutions only remain to be exa- 
mined. They are in the words following : 

"That the good People of this Commonwealth, having 
ever felt and continuing to feel the most sincere affection 
for their brethren of the other States, the truest anxiety for 
establishing and perpetuating the union of all, and the most 
scrupulous fidelity to thai Constitution which is the pledge 
of mutual friendship, and the instrument of mutual happi- 
ness, the General Assembly doth solemnly appeal to the 
like dispositions in the other Slates, in confidence that they 
will concur with this Commonwealth in declaring, as it 
does hereby declare, that the Acts aforesaid are unconstitu- 
tional, and mat the necessary and proper measures will be 
taken by each, for co-operating with this State, in maintain- 
ing unimpaired, the authorities, righto and liberties, reserv- 
ed to the States respectively, or to the people. 

«• That the Governor be desired to transmit a copy of the 
foregoing resolutions to the Executive authority of each of 
the other States, with a request that the same may be com- 
municated to the Legislature thereof; and that a copy be 
famished to each of the Senators and Representatives re* 
presenting this Slate in the Congress of the United States." 

Hie fiurness and regularity of the course of proceeding 
here pursued, have not protected it against objections even 
from sources too respectable to be disregarded. 

It has been sart that it belongs to the Judiciary of the 
United States, and not the State Legislatures, to declare 
die meaning of the Federal Constitution* 

But a declaration that proceedings of the Federal Go- 
vernment are not warranted bjr the Constitution, is a no- 
velty neither among the citizens nor among the Legislatures 
of the Stales; nor are tho citizens or the Legislator* 
of Virginia singular in the example of it. 

ffor can the declarations of either, whether affirming or 
denying the constitutionality of measures of the Federal 
Government, or whether made before or after judicial de- 
cisions thereon, be deemed in any point of view, an as- 
sumption of the office of the judge. The declarations, in 
such cases, are expressions of opinion, unaccompanied with 
any other effect than v*hat they may produce on opinion, 
by exciting reflection. The expositions of the Judiciary, 
on the other hand, are carried into immediate effect by 
force. The former may lead to a change in the legislative 
expression of the general will ; possibly to a change in the 
opinion of the Judiciary ; the latter enforces the general 
will, whilst mat will and mat opinion continue unchanged. 

And if there be no impropriety in declaring the unconsti- 
tutionality of proceedings in the Federal Government, 
where can be the impropriety of communicating the declara- 
tion to other States, and inviting their concurrence in a like 
declaration f What is allowable for one, must be allowable 
for all ; and a free communication among the States, where 
the Constitution imposes no restraint, is as allowable among 
the State Governments as among other public bodies or 
private citizens. This consideration derives a weight that 
cannot be denied to it, tram the relation of the State Legis- 
latures to the Federal Legislature as the immediate consti- 
tuents of one of its branches. 

Th» Legislatures of the States have a right also to origi- 
nate Amendments to the Constitution, by a concurrence of 
two-thirds of the whole number, in applications to Congress 
for the purpose. When new States are to be formed by a 
junction or two or more States or parts of States, the Le- 
gisiaturee of the Slates concerned are, as well as Congress, 
to eoooor in the measure. The Slates have a right also to 



enter into a gr sa mo nti or compacts) with the consent of 
Conaress, la all such cases a commanicatiofl among them 
results from the object which is common to them. 

It is, lastly, to be seen whether the confidence expressed 
by the resolution, that the necessary and proper m 



would be taken by ttfe other Slates for co-operating with 
Virginia in maintaining the rights reserved to the States, 
or to the people, be in any degree liable to the objections 
which have been raised against it. 

If it be liable to objection, it must be because either the 
object or the means are objectionable. 

The object being to maintain what the Constitution has 
ordained, is in itself a laudable object. 

The means are expressed in the terms M tbe necessanr 
and proper measures.' A proper object was to be pursuse* 
by means both necessary and proper. 

To find an objection, then, it must be shown that 
meaning was annexed to these general terms which 
not proper; and, for this purpose, either that the means 
used by the General Assembly were an example of iicnro- 
per means, or that there were no proper means to which 
the terms could refer. 

In the example given by the State, of declaring the 
Alien and Sedition Acts to be unconstitutional, and of com- 
municating the declaration to other States, no trace of im- 
proper means has appeared. And if the other States had 
concurred in making a like declaration, supported, too, by 
the numerous applications flowing immediately from the 
people, it can scarcely be doubted that these simple mesne 
would have been as sufficient as they are unexceptionable. 

It is no less certain that other means might have been 
employed, which are strictly within the limits of the Con- 
stitution. * The Legislatures of the States might have made 
a direct representation to Congress, with a view to obtain 
a rescinding of the two offensive Acts ; or, they might nave 
represented to their respective Senators in Congrsss their 
wish that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory 
amendment to the Constitution : or two-thirds of them- 
selves, if such had been their option, might, by an applica- 
tion to Congress, have obtained a Convention for the same 
object. - : 

These several means, though not equally eligible in 
themselves, nor probably to the States, were all constitu- 
tionally open for consideration. And if the General As- 
sembly, after declaring the two Acts to be unconstitutional 
the first and most obvious proceeding on the subject, did 
not undertake to point out to the other States a choice 
among the farther measures that might become neces- 
sary and proper, the reserve will not be misconstrued by 
liberal minds into any culpable imputation. 

These observations appear to form a satisfactory reply to 
every objection which is not founded on a misconception of 
the terms employed in the resolutions. There is one other, 
however, which may be of too much importance not to be 
added. It cannot be forgotten, that among the arguments 
addressed to those who apprehend danger to liberty from 
the establishment of the General Govemmeut over so jr/eat 
a country, the appeal was emphatically made to the inter- 
mediate existence of the State Governments, between the 
people and that Government, to the vigilance with which 
they would descry the first symptoms of usurpation, and to 
the promptitude with which they would sound the alarm 
to the public. This argument was probably not without 
its effect ; and if it was a proper one then to recommend 
the establishment of the Constitution, it must be a proper 
one now to assist in its interpretation. 

The only part of the two concluding resolutions mat re- 
mains to be noticed, is the repetition, in the ibst, of that 
warm affection to the Union and its members, and of that 
scrupulous fidelity to the Constitution, which have been , 
invariably felt by the People of this State. As the proceed- 
ings were introduced witn these sentiments, they could 
not be more properly closed than in the same manner. 
Should there be any so for misled as to call in question the 
sincerity of these professions, whatever regret may be ex- 
cited by the error, the General Assembly cannot descend 
into a discussion of it Those who have listened to the 
suggestion can only be left to their own recollection of the 
part which this State has borne in the establishment of our 
National Independence, in the establishment of our Na- 
tional Constitution, and in maintaining under it the authority 
and laws of the Union, without a single exception of in- 
ternal resistance or commotion. By recurring to the facts, 
they will be sble to convince themselves that the Repre- 
sentatives of the People of Virginia must be above the ne- 



48 



THE EXAMINER, &c. 



cessity of opposing any other shield to attacks on their 
national patriotism, than their own conscientiousness 
and the justice of an enlightened public; who will per- 
ceive in the resolutions themselves the strongest evi- 
dence of attachment both to the Constitution and the 
Union, since it is only by maintaining the different go- 
vernments and departments within their respective 
limits, that the blessings of either can be perpetuated. 

The extensive view of the subject thus taken by the 
Committee has led them to report to the House, as the 
result of the 1 whole, the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the General Assembly, having care- 
fully and respectfully attended to the proceedings of a 
number of the States, in answer to their resolutions of 
December 21, 1798, and having accurately and fully 
re-examined and re-considered the latter, find it to be 
their indispensable dnty to adhere to the same, as found- 
ed in truth, as consonant with the Constitution, and as 
conducive to its preservation ; and more especially to be 
their duty to renew, as they do hereby renew, their pro- 
test against " the Alien and Sedition Acts,'* as palpable' 
and alarming infractions of the Constitution. 

[Notb.^— The heading to each resolution, as given above, was 
not in the original, but has been introduced by us, for the faci- 
lity of- reference.— £</. J 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1834. 

In arranging the first three numbers of this volume 
of the Examiner, in the manner we have done, we have 
had in view a measure, which, we trust, will greatly 
tend to promote the circulation of the doctrines upon 
the establishment of which, the union of the States and 
the liberty of their people depend. 

The first No. contains those elementary documents 
which constitute the basis of the theory of Slate Sover- 
eignty, and which every citizen who values his politi- 
cal rights should have at hand for frequent reference, viz : 

The Declaration of Independence of 1776, 

The Articles of Confederation of 1778, 

The Federal Constitution of 1787, 

With a brief history of the formation of the Federal 
Government, intended to show, by reference to authen- 
tic documents and historical facts, that that Government 
was formed by the people of the several States in their 
separate and distinct capacities of Free, Sovereign, and 
Independent Communities, as altcays field by the Repub- 
lican party, and not by the people of the whole United 
States, as one aggregate mass, as maintained by the ad- 
voeates of consolidation. 

The second No. contains the documents connected 
with the great contest between the Federal and Demo- 
cratic parties, growing out of the enactment of the 
Alien and Sedition LawB, the result of which was the 
triumphant establishment of the doctrine of State Rights, 
as necessarily flowing from the existence of State So- 
vereignly, and which afe as follows .- 

The Alien and Sedition Laws ; 

The Kentucky Resolutions of '98 ; 

The Virginia Resolutions of *98 ; 

The Answers of the different States to those Resolu- 
tions; 

The Kentucky Resolutions of '99, in reply to the 
States ; 

The Original Draught by Mr. Jefferson of the Ken- 
tucky Resolutions. 

To these are added, as specimens of the orthodoxy 
of Pennsylvania, 

An Extract from the decision of Chief Justice Mc 
Kean, in the case of Cob bet ; 

An Extract from the decision of Chief Justice Tilgb- 
man, in the case of Olmstead. 

The third No. contains Mr. Madison's Report of '99, 
in support of the Virginia Resolutions of the preceding 
year, which is unquestionably the most powerful argu- 



ment on constitutional law that has appeared in this) 
country. 

These three Numbers, containing as mnch matter as 
is usually printed in a volume of a hundred pages, con- 
stitute of themselves, what may be called 

THE DEMOCRATIC TEXT-BOOK 

of '98 and '99, 

And in order to give them a chance of a wide circu- 
lation, under that tide, stitched together, and covered as 
a pamphlet, we have caused them to be stereotyped, and 
will be prepared to furnish any number of copies that 
may be called for, upon the terms stated below. If an 
extensive edition were disposed of, it could not fail to 
be productive of great benefit ; for, as nothing of per- 
sonal volutes appear on their pages, many persons could 
be induced to read, who are now deterred by their pre- 
judices from looking into a paper which engages in 
partizan warfare. 

PRICE OF THE TEXT-BOOK. 

For a single copy, - - - - -25 cents. 
For 25 copies, to the address of not more 

than Jim persons, $5, equal per copy to 20 cents.. 
For 60 copies, to the address of not more 

than ten persons, $10, equal per copy to 16§ cts. 
For 100 copies, to the address of not more 

than ten persons, $15, equal per copy to 15 cents. 
And in the same proportion for any larger number. 



THE EXAMINER 

Is published on every alternate Wednesday, on a su- 
per-royal sheet of 16 pages octavo. 

It advocates the Republican doctrines of "98, as set 
forth in the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions, and 
as maintained by Jefferson, Madison, McKean,and the 
other distinguished advocates of Staze Rights and 
State Remedies. It advocates, of course, a strict 
construction of the Constitution, and will oppose all 
restrictions upon industry, and all appropriations by the 
Federal Government for works of internal improve- 
ment. It deprecates all man-worship, and is emphati- 
cally devoted to principles, not men. t 

TERMS: 
• 1. The price of the paper is, per annum, payable in 
all cases in advance, as follows : 

For a single copy, $1 50 

For 4 copies, paid for at the same 
time by that number of subscribers, 
$5, equal per copy to - - - - 1 25 
For 10 copies, paid for in the same 

manner, $10, equal per copy to - 1 00 

2. Each remittance will be considered as a distinct 
transaction, and every subscription will be discontinued 
at the end of the year paid lor, unless renewed by a se- 
cond payment 

3. No subscription for less than a year will be re- 
ceived, and in all cases where money is remitted, it 
will be considered, unless otherwise expressed, in pay- 
ment of the current volume, and the back Nos. will 
accordingly be forwarded, until they are exhausted. 

4. All postages must be paid, except upon letters 
containing five dollars in a single note, or any larger 
sum ; "but the risk of miscarriage by the mail is as- 
sumed by the publisher. 

5. There are no agents established for this paper at 
any place ; but any postmaster or other individual may 
constitute himself an agent for others, by availing him- 
self of the discount allowed upon a number of copies, 

All communications to be addressed to the subscri- 
ber, who respectfully requests that the names of per- 
sons and places transmitted to him may be distinctly 
written, so as to avoid mistakes, which can ouly be cor 
rected by incurring the expense of postage. 

CONDYRAGUET. 



THE EXAMINER, 



AMD 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 



The Power* not Detected to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State*, are reserved to the 

Jeftrson. 



States respectively, or to the People jf mcii4aM*u to Us CtoMttaUfen, -Art. X. 

0/ Jnduttrf, as sacred as freedom of speech or of the press. 



Vol. II.] 



Wednesday, September 17, 1834. 



[No. 4. 



AN EXPOSITION 
Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a series of 
Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distin- 
guished citizen of Virginia, under the signature of 
•« Locke," in February, 1833. 

TO THOMAS RITCHIE, Esq. 
No. I. 
The confidence which was heretofore felt in the 
soundness of your political principles has caused 
your paper to be read in almost every family in Vir- 
ginia. Hundreds, nay thousands of our citizens 
read no other. The necessary consequence is, that 
you exert a powerful influence over the public 
mind. Indeed, sir, it cannot be denied, that even 
in the laborious retirement of your closet, you are 
felt in the daily exertion of no unimportant power 
over the affairs of this Government. 1 will not be 
so presumptuous as to offer you advice; for I am 
sure that you feel, with due sensibility, the duty 
which your position imposes on you, of doing no- 
thing which may mislead the public judgment, in 
the present awful crisis. I may be permitted to 
say to you, however, with perfect respect, and cer- 
tainly in no unfriendly spirit, that many of your 
readers do not consider your present course strictly 
consistent with your former principles. It is true, 
that you have, on more occasions than one, profess- 
ed to give us your political faith, and so far as your 
abstract principles are concerned, we have, per- 
haps, but little reason to complain of you. But you 
have dealt with us too much in generalities. It is 
not enough that you should profess yourself a friend 
to State Rights. We are all of us friendly, not only 
to State Rights, but io every other right which we 
are willing to acknowledge as such. But you have 
not yet told us, with sufficient clearness, what these 
State Rights are. We can no longer satisfy our- 
selves with abstractions in principle or speculations 
in reasoning. The time for action has arrived. The 
arm of the Federal Government is even now uplift- 
ed to shed the blood of our citizens. It is time for 
us to know, not only that we have rights, but also, 
in what those rights consist, and in what manner 
they may be asserted. You have taken a strong and 
decided stand against the doctrine of Nullification; 
nay, you can scarcely speak of it in any other lan- 
guage than that of contempt and derision. But you 
have not, so far as I recollect, favoured your read- 
ers with any detailed argument upon that subject. 
Neither have you distinctly told us what alternative 
you propose. You do indeed, contend for the right 
of Secession, but I have not been able to discover 
whether you consider this right merely as one inhe- 
rent in every political community, and therefore 



independent of the Constitution, or whether you 
propose it as a remedy for a breach of that instrw 
ment. In this state of uncertainty, as to the course 
which the leading journal of our State wonld wish 
us to pursue, it is a matter of no small interest to 
us, that you should come out more explicitly than 
heretofore. Permit me, then, as a citizen neither 
very young, nor wholly unconnected; aa one who 
considers every thing which he cherishes in our in- 
stitutions in the most imminent peril; as one who 
sincerely believes that you can form the public 
mind of Virginia, and that Virginia can control the 
destinies of this once happy Union, to entreat you 
to answer explicitly the following interrogatories. 
They are propounded, not in the spirit of a contro- 
versialist, but with a deep conviction that they in- 
volve the only principles upon which the rights of 
the States can be maintained, and of course the 
only security against a consolidated and essentially 
monarchical government: 

1. Is there, or is there not, any principle in the 
Constitution of the United States, by which the 
States may resist the usurpations of the Federal 
Government; or are such usurpations to be resisted 
only by revolution? 

2. If there be no such principle, is not the Fede- 
ral Government as unlimited in its powers as any 
other Government whatever be its form, whose en- 
croachments upon the rights of the citizen can be 
repelled only by rebellion, or other application of 
physical force? 

If you believe, as I am sure you do believe, that 
there is such conservative principle in the Consti- 
tution, then I beg the favour of you to point it out, 
and tell us in what manner we may render it availa- 
ble. In doing this, be pleased to answer— 

3. Is not the passing a law by Congress which the 
Constitution does not authorise, a usurpation on the 
part of that body? And is not every such unconsti- 
tutional law absolutely void, as passed by a delega- 
ted authority, beyond the limits of that authority? 

4. Are the States bound to submit to laws which 
are unconstitutional, and therefore void? 

5. If the States are not so bound to submit, is not 
the particular State which refuses to submit, right 
in so doing? 

6. If the recusant State be right in her refusal to 
submit, are not the other States wrong in compell- 
ing her to submit? Is it not oppression of the worst 
sort, to coerce obedience to usurped power? 

The above questions are propounded upon the 
hypothesis that Congress may have actually passed 
a law palpably and dangerously violating the Con^ 
stitution. And now be pleased to tell us in what 



50 



THE EXAMINER, 



manner the fact of such palpable and dangerous vio- 
lation is to be ascertained? In doing this, be also 
pleased to answer — 

7. Is there any common umpire established b$ 
the Constitution; to whom may be referred ques* ■ 
tions touching a breach thereof? 

If there be such common umpire, be pleased to 
point it out. 

8. If there be no such common umpire, does it 
not result from the necessity of the case, that each 
State must judge thereof for itself? 

9. If a State, in the actual exercise of this right, 
should decide that any given act of Congress is a 
palpable and dangerous violation of the Constitu- 
tion, is there any right of appeal from that decision? 

10. If there be, does the appeal lie to any other 
authority than the other parties to the Constitu- 
tion?. * 

11. Who are these " other parties?" The States, 
or the people ? 

Upon this last question, you are already so fuHy 
committed, that it is impossible to doubt your an- 
^ swer. 1 have, therefore, to ask you— 

12. Is not the decision of every inferior tribunal 
of Competent jurisdiction, obligatory and conclusive, 
until it is reversed? And if so, is not the decision 
of a State upon a constitutional question on which 
it has a right to decide, conclusive as to such State, 
until it is reversed by the other States, acting as 
such? 

13. If it bedhus conclusive, hat the State a right 
to act upon its decision or not? 

14. If it has no such right of action, is its right 
of judgment any thing more than a mere liberty of 

~ Speech and of opinion, and, therefore, no available 
right at all ? 

15. If it has such right of action, is it to act by 
submitting to the usurped power, or by opposing it? 

A man of your spirit, can give but'one answer to 
this question. Then be good enough to tell us in 
what manner this opposition is to be made ? In do- 
ing this, be pleased to answer — 

16. Are petition, remonstrance and protest, any 
thing more than appeals to the oppressor, and there- 
fore in no sense, to be called opposition to him ? Or 
if it be opposition, and these petitions, remonstran- 
ces and appeals, should all be disregarded, is the 
matter to rest there ? 

17. If not, and farther resistance is to be made, 
ought not that resistance to be made in auch form 
as to redress the wrong? 

IS. If so, can the wrong be redressed by the in- 
jured State going out of the Union ? Does not this, 
on the contrary 1 , increase the wrong as to her, by 
compelling her to relinquish all the advantages of 
► the Union, to which she is fairly entitled, and at the 
same time, entourage the aggressors to persevere in 
the wrong, by withdrawing all opposition to them ? 
Is not the " redress," in this mode of seeking it, 
merely an additional wrong done to the injured 
party? 

19. If so, what do you propose to substitute for 
it? . 

You perceive, sir, that I have, in all these ques- 
tions, followed very closely, the Virginia Resolu- 
tions and Madison's Report. They are the text upon 
which my future commentaries will be offered. 1 
have done so on purpose, for you have always been 
an advocate of those documents, as being clearly 
orthodox; and as I entertain the same opinion of 
them myself, I am unfeignedly desirous to see by 
what process of reasoning, any two men of tolera- 
ble intellect, can be led to different conclusions 
from such premises. I confess that it seems to me 
exceedingly dear, that our Constitution is most 



worthless and tyrannical, if the usurpations of tboav 
who administer it, cannot be resisted by any means 
short of revolution. I have always considered the 
reserved powers of the States, a* the only real 
check upon the powers of the Federal Govern-' 
ment; and I have always considered it, not only the 
right, but the imperious duty of the States, so Xq 
apply that chrck, as not to dissolve the Union. And 
I have never been able to discover any mode of do- 
ing this, except by the positive refusal of the States> 
to submit to usurpations, whilst, at the same time,, 
remaining in the Union, they force the Federal Go- 
vernment back within the charter of its power.— » 
This seems to me an irrisistible inference, from the 
principles indicated in the preceding interrogato- 
ries. Perhaps you can show me that these princi- 
ples do not lead to Nullification ? I shall be happy 
to be undeceived; but at present, I entertain no 
doubt, that that doctrine is the only one upon which 
the States can safely repose. It is easy to show 
that this is the legitimate result of the Reaotatkms) 
of 1798. I shall endeavour to show this in a second 
letter, with which you will be shortly troubled. In 
the mesn time, you will not only gratify me, but 
hundreds of others, by answering the foregoing' 
interrogatories, distinctly, plainly, and directly. The 
views which 1 now indicate, have already been sub- 
stantially presented to the public; bur, as I consider 
them of vital importance, I shall continue to presa 
them under all the forms, of which they are suscep- 
tible, until some one will condescend to prove them 
wrong. 

You perceive, sir, that this is only the commence- 
ment of a series of letters — a short series it will be, 
— which it is my purpose to address- to you. Every 
Virginian, who has ever turned his attention to con- 
stitutional law at all, knows that the interrogatories* 
which 1 have propounded, involve the whole sub* 
ject of controversy which now agitates the country. 
It is, therefore, peculiarly the duty of the public 
press, to enlighten the public mind upon that sub- 
ject. If our newspapers are, indeed, as they claim 
to be, "thecentinels of liberty," it is their duty 
not merely to watch, but to point out the quarter 
from which danger may be apprehended, and to 
give the alarm when it approaches. It will not de- 
rogate from your dignity, Mr. Ritchie, to reply to 
an anonymous correspondent, when he addressed 
you in a respectful manner, upon a subject of grave 
public concern. It is on all hands admitted, that 
the old party lines, have lately become so confused 
and intermingled, that it is almost impossible to dis- 
tinguish them any longer. Be pleased, then, to tell 
us what are the principles of that Republican party* 
of which you have professed to be the true and 
faithful organ for thirty years; and tell us, at the 
same time, in what manner we may assert those 
principles in defence of our rights and liberties. If 
there ever was a time, when you could be of service 
to your country, that time is now. May you become 
convinced of it, before it will be too late to redeem 
every Southern principle, and every Southern right, 
from the overwhelming destruction, which the mea- 
sures of this administration are preparing for them. 

From the Charleston Mercury. 

THE OATH OF ALLEGIANCE. 

[A short Catechism fur thinking and conscientious 

Union men.] 
We understand you to believe in two allegiances, 
one to the State, the other to the United States; 
and that many of you believe that the latter is para- 
mount. Answer to yourselves, if not to us, the fol- 
lowing plain questions. 
It the Union were dissolved to-morrow, by the 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY 



51 



general consent of the States, would not your en-, 
tire Allegiance be then due v to your own State 
without dispute? If yea, does this not convince 
you that the right to your entire Allegiance resides 
ultimately in your State? 

Do you admit that a State has a right, peacefully, 
to secede from the Union? If yea, is that not then 
a right to discharge and release you from all obliga- 
tions to the Federal Government, and to the Unit- 
ed States — and is not such a right, a right to your 
paramount Allegiance? 

But if you will not allow that secession may be 
rightful and peaceable, you will at least admit, that 
a State may separate herself by revolution, from 
the Union. If so, when she has declared her sepa- 
ration, will not those of her citizens who afterwards 
claim to be citizens of the Union, and resist her au- 
thority, stand to her in precisely the relation in 
which Tories stood in the Revolution of 7"6 ? 

Suppose the other States, in that event, decline 
making war, and content themselves with declaring 
such State "out of the pale of the Union," - " an 
enemy in war, in peace a friend," can the citizen 
inhabiting such State; still deny her his entire alle- 
giance, and contend that he owes it to the then fo- 
reign confederacy of the rest of the States? You 
see then that by an act of your own State, or if not 
by that alone by that and by the acts of the other 
States, your entire Allegiance may be made to re- 
vert to your own State. Now is it possible for the 
Federal Government, or the rest of the States, by 
any act whatever, to divest your State of any por- 
tion of the Allegiance which you acknowledge 
that you now owe her? If not, then do you not 
perceive that your Allegiance to your State is para- 
mount, is the only Allegiance, since alone it possess- 
es the essential of Allegiance in being '* unaliena- 
ble;" while what you call your Allegiance to the 
Union, is not Allegiance, because it is capable, in va- 
rious contingencies, of being transferred and anni- 
hilated? 

Suppose the present United States were to agree 
to divide themselves into two or more distinct and 
unconnected confederacies, or Unions, each asso- 
ciation of States having its own general or common 
Government, you must acknowledge that your 
whole Allegiance would remain within that new 
and smaller confederacy, to which your State may 
attach herself— that in a further subdivision it 
would still follow your State into the yet smaller 
confederacy — and at last be confined solely and 
exclusively to your own State, should there be a 
final dismemberment of all the confederacies. Does 
not this prove to you where dwells the right to 
your paramount Allegiance, which Allegiance 
thus, in all these possible changes, abides with and 
follows your State? 

Do you not see, that your State, by her own act, 
can release you from other obligations, to which she 
has subjected you, while no earthly power can re- 
lease you from your obligations to her ! 

These are arguments addressed to your reason, 
but may we not appeal directly to your hearts, and 
ask them where the paramount affection is bestow- 
ed? 

We rejoice to know that the hearts of an over- 
whelming majority of South Carolinians have, long 
ago, irrevocably decided this great question of Al- 
legiance. 

OATHS OF OFFICE. 
Required by the Constitutions of the different States, 
with the dales of the said Constitutions rcspec* 
tively, 
liaiaa. — Article 9, Sect, 1.— Every person elected 



or appointed to either of the places or offices pro- 
vided in this constitution, and every person elected, 
appointed, or commissioned, to any judicial execu- 
tive, military or other office under this state; shall, 
before he enter on the discharge of the duties of 
his place or office, take and subscribe the following 

oath or affirmation: " I, , do swear, that I 

will support the constitution of the United States 
and of this State, so long as I shall continue a citi- 
zen thereof. So help me God." 

"I, — — , do swear, that I will faithfully dis- 
charge, to the best of my abilities, the duties incum- 
bent on me as , according to the constitution 
and the laws of the state: So help me God:" pro- 
vided, that an affirmation in the above forms may 
be substituted, when the persons shall be conscien- 
tiously scrupulous of taking and subscribing an oath. 
October29th, 1819. 

Massachusetts. — Chant, 6, Article 1.— Any per- 
son chosen governor, or lieutenant governor, coun- 
sellor, senator, or representative, and accepting the 
trust, shall before he proceed to execute the duties 
of his place or office, take, make, and subscribe, the 
following declaration, viz: 

" 1, A. B., do declare that I believe the Christian 
religion, and have a firm persuasion of its truth \ 
and that I am seized and possessed, in my own right 
of the property required by the Constitution, as one 
qualification for the office or place to which I am 
elected." 

And the governor, lieutenant governor, and coun- 
sellors, shall make and subscribe the said declaration 
in the presence of the two Houses of Assembly! and 
the senators and representatives first elected under 
this constitution, before the president and' five of 
the council of the former constitution; and, for ever 
afterwards, before the governor and council for the 
time being. 

And every person chosen to either of the places 
or offices aforesaid, as also any person appointed 
or commissioned to any judicial, executive, military 
or other office, under the government, shall, before 
be enter on the discharge of the business of bis 
place or office, take and subscribe the following 
declaration and oaths, or affirmations, viz: 

"I, A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, 
profess, testify and declare, that the Common wealthy 
of Massachusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free! 
sovereign, and independent state; and I do swearA 
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the saidl 
commonwealth, and that I will defend the same' 
against traitorous conspiracies, and all hostile at- - 
tempts whatsoever: and that I do renounce and ab- 
jure all allegiance, subjection, and obedience to the 
king, queen or government of Great Britain, as the 
case may be, and every other foreign power what- 
soever: and that no foreign prince, person, pre- 
late, state or potentate, hath, or ought to have 
any jurisdiction, and superiority, pre-eminence, 
authority, dispensing or other power in any matter, 
civil, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this common- 
wealth, except the authority and power which is or 
may be vested by their constituents in the Congress 
of the United States: And 1 do further testify and 
declare that no man or body of men hath or can 
have any right to absolve or discharge me from the 
obligation of this oath, declaration or affirmation, 
and that I do make this acknowledgment, profes- 
sion, testimony, declaration, denial, renunciation, - 
and abjuration heartily, and truly, according to the 
common meaning and acceptation of the foregoing 
words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, 
or secret reservation whatsoever. So help me God, 

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear and affirm, that I 
will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform 



53 



THE EXAMINER, 



all the duties incumbent on me as • 



accord- 



ing to the best of my abilities -and understanding:, 
agreeably to the rules and regulations of the consti- 
tution, and the laws of this commonwealth. So help 
me God."— March 2, 1780. 

Art. 6.— Instead of the oath of allegiance, pre- 
scribed by the constitution, the following oath shall 
be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or 
appointed to any office, civil or military, under the 
government of this commonwealth, before he shall 
enter upon the duties of his office, to wit: 
# "I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear 
J true faith and allegiance to the commonwealth of 
\ Massachusetts, and will support the constitution 
thereof. So help me God. — Amendment of June 5, 
1821. 

Nsw Hampshire. — Any person chosen governor, 
counsellor, senator, or representative, military, or 
civil officer, (town officers excepted,) accepting 
the trust, shall, before he proceeds to execute the 
duties of his office, make and subscribe the follow- 
ing declaration, viz: 

"I, A. B-, do solemnly swear, that 1 will bear 
/ faith and true allegiance to the State of New Hamp* 
I shire, and will support the constitution thereof. So 
help me God." 

•• I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely swear and 
affirm, that I will faithfully and impartially discharge 

and perform all the duties incumbent on me as 

according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to the 
rules and regulations of this constitution, and the 
laws of the State of New Hampshire. So help me 
God."— Feb. 1792. 

Vehmont.— Chapu 2, Sect. 29.— Every officer, 
whether judicial, executive, or military, in authori- 
ty, under this state, before he enters upon the exe- 
cution of his office, stiall take and subscribe the fol- 
lowing oath or affirmation of allegiance to this state, 
unless he shall produce evidence that he has before 
taken toe same; and also the following oath or affir- 
mation of office, except military officers and such 
as shall be exempted by the legislature. 

The Oath or Affirmation of Allegiance. 
•'You do solemnly swear (or affirm) that you 
will be true and faithful to the State of Vermont, 
and that you will not, directly or indirectly, do any 
act or thing injurious to the constitution or govern- 
ment thereof, as established by convention: (if an 
oath) so help you God, (if an affirmation) under the 
pains and penalties of perjury. 

The Oath or Affirmation of Office. 

•'You — do solemnly swear (or affirm) that 
you will faithfully execute the office of — ' — for 

the— of ; and will therein do equal right 

and justice to all men to the best of your judgment 
and abilities, according to law: (if an oath) so help 
you God: (if an affirmation) under the pains and 
penalties ot perjury. — July 9, 1793. 

Ruode Island. — [This State still carries on its go- 
vernment under the Colonial charter granted by 
King Charles II. 

By that Charter the Colonial government was au- 
thorised " to contrive and appoint such forms of 
oaths nnd attestations, not repugnant (but as near 
as may be) agreeable, as aforesaid, to the laws and 
statutes of this our realm, as are convenient and re- 
quisite, with respect to the due administration of 
justice, and due execution and discharge of all offi- 
ces and places of trust by the persons that shall be 
therein concerned.'* After the declaration of in- 
dependence, it is stated in a note to a printed copy of 
this charter which now lies before us, as follows. — 
•• The oaths of allegiance and of office are made 
conformable to the principles of the revolution." — 



We hope to be able to give a copy of these hereaf- 
ter.— [Ed.]— See p. 64. 

Connecticut.— Art. 10, Sect. 1.— Members of 
the general assembly, and all officers, executive, 
and judicial, shall, before tbey enter on the duties 
of their respective offices, take the following oath 
or affirmation to wit: 

'•You do solemnly swear, (or affirm as the case 
may be,) that you will support the constitution of 
the United States, and the constitution of the state 
of Connecticut, so long as you continue a citizen 
thereof; and that you will faithfully discharge, ac- 
cording to law, the duties of the office of to^ 

the best of your abilities. So help you God. — Sep- 
tember, 15, 1818." 

Nsw Yobk — Art. 6, Sect. 1.— Members of the 
legislature, and all officers, executive and judicial, 
except such inferior officers, as may by law be ex- 
empted, shall, before they enter on the duties of 
their respective offices, take and subscribe the fol- 
lowing oath or affirmation: 

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm as the case may 
be,) that I will support the constitution of the Unit- 
ed States and the constitution of the state of New 
York, and that I will faithfully discharge the duties 

of the office of , according to the best of my 

ability." 

And no other oath, declaration, or test, shall be 
required as a qualification for any office or public 
trust.— Nov. 10, 1821. 

New Jersey.— Section 23. — That every person 
who shall be elected, as aforesaid, to be a member 
of the legislative council or house of assembly, 
shall, previous to his taking his seat in council or 
assembly, take the following oath or affirmation, 
viz: [on the 20th September, 1777, an act of the 
legislature was passed substituting the word State 
for the word Colony.] 

" I, A. B., do solemnly declare that, as a mem- 
ber of the legislative council (or assembly, as the 
case may be) of the colony of New Jersey, I will 
not assent to any law, vote, or proceeding which 
shall appear to me injurious to the public welfare 
of said colony, nor that shall annul or repeal that 
part of the third section, in the charter of this col- 
ony, which establishes that the elections of mem- 
bers of the legislative council and assembly shall be 
annual; nor that part of the twenty.second section 
in the said charter respecting the trial by jury, nor 
that shall annul, repeal, or alter, any part or parts 
of the eighteenth or nineteenth sections of the 
same.— July 2, 1776. 

Pennsylvania. — Article 8. — Members of the ge- 
neral assembly, and all officers, executive and judi- 
cial, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to sup- 
port the constitution of this commonwealth, and to 
perform the duties of their respective offices with 
fidelity.— September 2, 1790. 

Delaware. — Article 8. — Members of the general 
assembly and all officers, executive, and judicial, 
shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support 
the constitution of this state and to perform the du- 
ties of their respective offices with fidelity. — Dec. 
2, 1831. 

Maryland. — Sect. 55.— That every person ap- 

Eointed to any office of profit or trust, shall before 
e enters on the execution thereof, take the follow- 
ing oath to wit: «' I, A. B., do swear, that 1 do noti 
hold myself bound in allegiance to the King of Great I 
Britain, and that I will be faithful, and bear true' 
allegiance to the state of Maryland." And shall also 
subscribe a declaration of his belief in the chris- 
tian religion. — Aug. 14, 1776. 

Virginia. — No oath of office is prescribed by the 
Constitution of this State, adopted on the 15th of 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



55 



January, 1830. We presume, however, that one is 
prescribed by law, and have taken steps for procur- 
ing a copy. — [Ed.] 

North Caboli*a.— &e/. 12. — That every per- 
son, who shall be chosen a member of the senate 
or house of commons, or appointed to any office 
or place of trust, before takirtg his seat, or enter- 
ing upon the execution of his office, shall take an 
oath to the state: and all officers shall take an oath 
of office.— December 18, 1776. 

South Cajloljha. — Article 4.— All persons who 
shall be chosen or appointed to any office of profit 
or trust, before entering on the execution thereof, 
shall take the following oath: " I do swear (or af- 
firm) that I am duly qualified, according to the con- 
stitution of this state, to exercise the office to which 
I have been appointed, and will, to the best of my 
abilities, discharge the duties thereof and preserve, 
protect, and defend the constitution of this state, 
and of the United States.— June 3, 1790. 

Gxoboia.— Art. 1. Sect. 19. — Every member of the 
senate and house of Representatives shall before he 
takes his seat, take the following oath or affirma- 
tion to wit: "1, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm 
as the case may be) that 1 have not obtained my 
election by bribery, treats, canvassing, or other un- 
due or unlawful means, used by myself, or others 
by my desire or approbation, for that purpose; that 
1 consider myself constitutionally qualified as a Se- 
nator or Representative, and that on all questions 
and measures which may come before me, 1 will 
five my vote, snd so conduct myself, as may, in my 
judgment, appear most conducive to the interest 
. and prosperity of this State; and that I will bear 
/ true faith and allegiance to the same; and to the ut- 
I most of my power snd ability observe, conform to, 
support, and defend the constitution thereof." 

Article 2, Seel. 5.— The governor shall, before he 
enters on the duties of his office, take the following 
oath or affirmation: " I do solemnly swear (or af- 
firm, as the case may be) that I will faithfully exe- 
cute the office of governor to the state of Georgia; 
and will, to the best of my abilities, preserve, pro- 
tect, and defend the said state, and cause justice to 
be executed in mercy therein, according to the con- 
stitution and laws thereof.— Msy 13, 1798. 

Ksxtuokt,— Art. 6, Sect. 1.— Members of the Ge- 
neral assembly, and all officers, executive and judi- 
cial, before they enter upon the execution of their 
1 respective offices, shall take the following oath or 
affirmation: •• I do solemnly swear, (or affirm, as the 
. case may be,) that 1 will be faithful and true to the 
I commonwealth of Kentucky, so long as I continue 
a citizen thereof, and that I will faithfully execute, 
to the best of my abilities, the office of ac- 
cording to law — August 17, 1799. 

Tbvxsssze.— Art. 9, Sect.l.— That every person 
who shall be chosen or appointed to any office of 
trust, or profit, shay, before entering on the execu- 
tion thereof, take an oath to support the constitu- 
tion of this state, sad also an oath of office.— Feb. 
6, 1796. 

Ohio.— Art. 7, Sect. 1.— Every person who shall 
be chosen or appointed to any office of trust or profit 
under the authority of the state, shall, before emer- 
ing on the execution thereof, take an oath or affir- 
mation to support the constitution of the United 
States and this state, and also an oath of office."— 
Nov. 29, 1802. 

I*dia»a.— ArU 11, Sect. 1.— Every oerson who 
shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust 
or profit, under the authority of this state, shall, 
before entering on the duties of said office, Uke an 
oath or affirmation, before any person lawfully au- 
thorised to administer oaths, to support the consti- 



tution of the United States and the constitution of 
this state, and also an oath of office. — June 29, 
1816. 

Louisiana.— Art. 6, Sect. 1.— Members of the ge- 
neral assembly, and all officers, executive and judi- 
cial, before they enter upon the execution of their 
respective offices, shall take the following oath or 
affirmation: "J, (A. B.,) do solemnly swear (or af- 
firm) that I will faithfully and impartially discharge 
and perform all the duties incumbent on me, as 
, according to the best of my abilities and 
understanding, agreeably to the rules and regula- 
tions of the constitution and the laws of this state- 
So help me God."— January 22, 1812. 

Mississippi. — Art. 6, Sect. 1.— Members of the ge- 
neral assembly, and all officers, executive, and ju- 
dicial, before they enter on the execution of their 
respective offices, shall take the following oath or 
affirmation, to wit: " I solemnly swear, (or affirm, 
as the case msy be,) that I will support the consti- 
tution of the United States, and the constitution of 
the state of Mississippi, so long as I continue a citi- 
zen thereof, and that I will faithfully discharge, to 
the best of my abilities, the duties of the office of 
— — , according to law. 9o help me God. — Aug. 
15, 1817. 

Iu.iHois.-v4r/. 2, Sect. 26.— Every person who 
shall be chosen or appointed to any office of trust 
or profit, shall, before entering upon the duties 
thereof, take an oath to support the constitution of 
the United States, and of this state, and also an oath 
of office.— August 26, 1818. 

Alabama.— Art. 6, Sect. 1.— The members of the 
general assembly, and all officers, executive and ju- 
dicial, before they enter on the execution of their 
respective offices, shall take the following oath or 
affirmation, to wit: "I solemnly swear (or affirm as 
the case may be,) that I will support the constitu- 
tion of the United States, and the constitution of 
the state of Alabama, so long as I continue a citi- 
zen thereof, and that I will faithfully discbarge, to 
the best of my abilities, the duties of 9 , ac- 
cording to law. So help me God." — Aug. 2, 1819. 

HiasovRi.—Art. 3, Sect. 32.— The appointment of 
all officers, not otherwise directed by this constitu- 
tion, shall be made in such manner as may be pre- 
scribed by law; and all officers, both civil and mil- 
itary, under the authority of this state, shall, before 
entering on the duties of their respective offices, 
take an oath or affirmation to support the constitu- 
tion of the United States, and of this state and to 
demean themselves faithfully in office. — July 19, 
1820. 



COMMUNICATIONS, 



Mr. Editor: 
During the present agitated state of the public 
feeling, permit an old correspondent to solicit your 
attention to that which should continue to engage 
the thoughts of all classes of the community— ••the 
removal of the Public Deposites;"— a political of- 
fence that has no parallel in any Free nation of the 
world. — If an enlightened People resolve not to 
submit to a Dominering Faction, and to be neither 
inveigled or bullied out of their rights, and reduced 
to a state of vassalage; then let them as they re- 
gard the country which is endeared to them by the 
most sacred ties, and which gave birth to the vene- 
rated Washington and Franklin, never suffer this 
subject to be buried in oblivion, for the same power 
which has so shamefully violated the public faith, 
and trampled on the laws of the land, is prepared 
with the sword aud purse at command, to destroy 
every vestige of freedom, unless the arm of the 
usurper is arrested, and his myrmidons who are 



51 



THE EXAMINER, 



fattening" on the ill-gotten spoils of ft much injured 
country, ftre driven from office. — If I could be in- 
spired with the spirit of a Junius, I would devote 
my pen to rouse the people from their apathy, and 
call on them to efface the foul stain from the cha- 
racter of the nation which it has received, and to 
cleanse the public offices, some of which (like the 
Augean Stable) are so filled with corruption, as to 
require a Herculean labour to rid them of it. — In 
addressing you in the language of truth and com- 
mon sense, I do assure you that under their influ- 
ence, I have endeavoured through the course of my 
life, 4o be guided by republican principles. I have 
never sought, nor do I covet office. — I defy the 
shaft of calumny, and despise the sophistry, petty 
intrigue, and mean subterfuge of unprincipled men, 
whether they move in private or public stations.— 
I have been as you well know a warm and disinter- 
ested eulogist of the present chief magistrate of the 
United States. — That time is past— all men are lia. 
ble to err — and I am free to confess that I have been 
deceived. — When I found him deviating from the 
path of political rectitude, and surrounded by a 
horde of Satellites, composed of sycophants and 
time-serving minions, ready to crouch at the foot- 
stool of the Dictator, my heart sickened with dis- 
gust. — Has he not rejected the friendly counsel of 
the most upright, sensible and honorable men of the 
nation, to gratify a set of cringing hypocrites and 
ravenous office-hunters? Posterity may do justice 
to Andrew Jackson, as the hero of New Orleans, 
but his conduct as President of the United States, 
will be condemned, for the unnatural and ferocious 
part he was eager to act against his native State, 
(South Carolina) whose chivalric and patriotic sons 
bad the courage to redress their own grievances, 
and prove how dangerous it is to infringe the rights 
of a gallant and independent people with impuni- 
ty; and I am happy to say that thousands who were 
disposed to unite in supporting the odious and ty- 
rannical measures of the President against the Nul- 
Hfier% now nctbly acknowledge their error, and 
have adopted their doctrines, and for one man in 
1832, who exclaimed against nullification, there are 
a thousand who now rest their faith on State 
Rights and State Remedies.—" Tecnpora motantur 
et tios mutamar in illis." 

I will not trespass much longer on your patience 
as it forms no part of my purpose to notice particu- 
larly the various abuses and flagrant acts of injus- 
tice with which the administration is charged, — the 
■ chief of which are, that precious piece of fustian, 
the Proclamation,— the Fonca Bill, — Protest, — 
Corruption of the Post Office Department — Land 
Office, &c. &c. &c. My object is to confine your 
attention to the gross outrage committed by the 
President, and in defiance of the public opinion, in 
wantonly violating the Bank charter, by ft removal 
of the Depoaitet t contrary to the interests of the 
People, and without the consent of Congress. 

Sir, I bhiah for the honor of my country, when I 
consider that this rash step which would bring the 
Kingly head of a free state to the block, was the 
deed of ft republican President, and too passively 
submitted to by a republican People. — The day of 
retribution is at hand, when Political Delinquents 
must answer for their transgressions. At the ap- 
proaching elections the people should be reminded 
of the Removal of the Deposites, and not suffer the 
question of Bank or no Bank, to make them forget 
the duty they owe to their country in removing 
those public servants, who sanctioned the outrage 
by tbeir votes in Congress. If they will not avail 
themselves of the right of calling on their legisla- 
tures to compel the merchants to pay the amount 



of their bonds to the United States Bank, they 
must trust to the tardy operation of the Ballot Box 
for redress. — As to the Bank, it has stood like a 
rock in the sea, unmoved by the dashing of the 
foaming billows. The ungenerous manner in which 
it has been assailed and traduced, and the repeated 
attempts made to criminate the President and Di- 
rectors, have been met by a manly,fair and honora- 
ble spirit, which while it has elevated their charac- 
ter in the public estimation, and confirmed the uti- 
lity of this great national institution, has exposed 
the blind infatuation of its enemies. The confi- 
dence in the integrity of the Bank is undiminished, 
and the monied interests of the government and 
stockholders have been conducted both under the 
administration of Mr. Cheves and Mr. Biddle, with 
the most rigid regard to honor and punctuality. — 
What greater proof can be given of the high res- 
pectability and soundness of the Bank, than the 
perfect confidence reposed in it by Foreigners in 
every part of the world? The liberality which it 
has exhibited on numerous occasions has called 
forth universal approbation. — In many instances it 
has sustained some of the local Banks, and saved 
them from Bankruptcy. — It is also generally known 
that in 1832, the Bank negociated bills to the 
amount of $120,000,000, without charge or pre- 
mium. The learned Dr. Cooper, of Columbia, in 
South Carolina, has truly remarked that the Bank 
"has not only proved itself an institution of great 
public utility, but has been in n,o instance the tool 
of a political party." 

Although the constitution has not provided for 
the establishment of a national bank, and many 
persons object to a re-charter, solely on this ac- 
count, yet when it has been found from experience 
how necessary it has been to the commercial pros- 
perity of every state of the Union, we ought to 
yield much to the general good. Without the 
United States Bank, we might be placed at the 
mercy of a**et of political sharpers, or subjected to 
the unreasonable demands ot Brokers; — without 
this Bank, trade would suffer much embarrassment 
and consequently, produce, houses, land and labor, 
would greatly depreciate, — and as a safe place of 
deposite, it could have no rival. What will become 
of the public treasure if left to a corrupt President, 
aided by a more corrupt legislation? It would pro- 
bably be squandered away in bribery at elections, 
or in paying and supporting political knaves and 
spendthrifts — and this would eventuate in national 
bankruptcy, and heavy direct taxes. — If the ruth- 
less warfare now waged by General Jackson against 
the Bank should effect its downfall, the people will 
not know how to estimate the loss until they feel 
the serious inconveniences arising from it. — The 
Bank was first chartered under the administration 
of General Washington. Whatever that great and 
good man deemed expedient for the welfare of his 
country, proved right, — his example has been fol- 
lowed by every successive administation, except An- 
drew Jackson. It is not too late for him to lay aside 
his animosity and personal prejudices; he is accus- 
ed of being of s vindictive spirit} let him come for- 
ward, and convince us to the contrary. General 
Washington had no great difficulty in conquering 
his enemies in the field, but bis chief merit consist- 
ed in making friends of his enemies, and in subdu- 
ing the greatest enemy of all, his passions ! and in 
so doing, he evinced true greatness of mind. — Let 
General Jackson cease to be the President of a fac- 
tion, and repair if possible the injuries he has done, ^ 
before he can ever hope for forgiveness from a free 
and generous people. There is no want of highly 
honorable and zealous defenders of the Constitution 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



55 



%nd Freedom in both Houses of Congress, who have 
faithfully done their duty.— i trust in God there is 
a redeeming 1 spirit which will rescue this once hap- 
py, bat now degraded country from impending 
ruin, and revive those; halcyon d>ys> when the 
United 8tates enjoyed uninterrupted prosperity, 
and our citizens were proud of preserving their 
rights and privileges unimpaired. 
Yours, truly, 

HERMANN. 

ron tub xxAXTvzfc. 
To the* Editor, 

In a letter published in the Boston Commercial 
Gazette, of the 2nd July, 1832, we intimated our 
intention of considering, in a subsequent number, 
the subject of the present paper; but further reflec- 
tion induced us, at that time, to defer the execution 
of that intention. 

A dissolution of the Union, every friend of man- 
kind must deprecate. Next to the loss of liberty, it 
would be the greatest calamity, that any political 
act could bring upon the people. It is too grave a 
subject to be treated with levity, nor should the 
public mind by the frequent and inconsiderate man- 
ner with which it is introduced on ordinary occa- 
sions in high places, by individuals whose stations 
in the community give weight to their opinions, be 
familiarized with the idea, and the people thereby 
lose a proper sense of its magnitude and importance. 

In fulfilment of that design, the following commu- 
nication was prepared for publication, during the ses- 
sion of congress before the last; but as room -could not 
be scared for its insertion entire,in the paper in which 
it was proposed to be published, we would not con- 
sent to its being broken into parts, and consequently 
it did not appear — it is therefore placed at your dis- 
posal, as the present seems to be a proper moment 
ibr every one to reflect seriously upon the subject, 
and to consider upon the disastrous consequences of 
such an event 

THE VALUE OF THE UNION. 

The projected alteration in the tariff, now before 
congress, has produced a nigh degree of excitement 
among those, who suppose their particular interests 
will be injured by its adoption. The reduction of 
taxes to the legitimate purposes of the government, 
will, it is said, produce evils of so serious a charac- 
ter, as to render it expedient for Massachusetts "to 
calculate the vahie of the Union," and if it became a 
law "would justify the States and Citizens aggrieved 
by it, in any measure which they might think pro- 
per to adopt for the purpose of obtaining redress." 

Modern politicians appear to merge politics in 
finance* and in politics as in trade, to consider mo- 
ney the only standard of value. Civil or moral be- 
nefits seem, with them, to be either worthless, or, 
of secondary consideration. If the time has really 
arrived when we are to calculate the value of the 
Union, and the calculation, like a matter of trade, 
is to be made bv that standard, it will be necessary 
that the case should be correctly stated, that our 
figures may not lead to false results. For if it be 
made a pecuniary question, it will be wise first to 
ascertain, whether profit and not loss will be deriv- 
ed from the act? Is the value of the Union, then, 
to be estimated by what it cost, or by what it is 
now worth? As we consider both to be interest- 
ing and important questions, we shall first pro- 
ceed by the pecuniary standard, to estimate the 
cost. 

In this estimate the money expended, not only by 
the United States, but by Great Britain, France, 



Spain, and Holland, in the war of the revolution, 
must be included; because these powers becoming 
parties in that contest was a consequence, and for 
the object finally obtained by it. 

The expenditures of the United States from 1/75 
to 1783 inclusive, amounted to the sum of 135 mil- 
lion of dollars in specie. The paper issue was near- 
ly three times that amount. Besides this, the large 
bounties in money and lands given by the States to 
make good the deficiencies of the paper money to 
encourage enlistments, would, according to Seybert, 
double that sum. The amount therefore, of money 
value expended by the United States in the war of 
the revolution, was 270 millions of dollars! 

What was the cost in money to Great Britain? 

The proof usually admitted to establish the fact^ 
is the increase of the national debt during the con* 
test.- But this is obviously erroneous, as the increase 
of taxes is not included in the amount. No better 
rule however can now be found for the purpose, and 
we will work by that. 

In the year 1775, the English national debt 
amounted to £129,860,018 

In 1 783 it amounted to 252,584,986 



showing an increase of £122,724,968, 

or, 545J millions of dollars, as the money expended 
of Great Britain. 

The amount of money expended by France, Spain, 
and Holland, in their war with Great Britain, as the 
allies of the United States, no means exist for as- 
certaining. The three powers did not probably ex- 
fiend less than that expended by Great Britain. But 
et it be assumed as one half of that amount— how 
then stands the account? 

The expense to the United States 270 million?, 
Great Britain .... 545 
France, Spain and Holland . . 277 

1092 
making in the aggregate, the enormous sum of ele- 
ven hundred millions of dollars actual expenditure. 

But this sum, great as it is, must be fir short of 
the actual sum of loss. How shall we estimate the 
vast amount of property lost and destroyed by sea 
and land? the burning and plundering of towns and 
villages? the loss of crops, of time, labor, both in- 
tellectual and bodily, from the year 1764, ten yearn 
previous to the war, to the close of it in 1783, em- 
bracing a term of twenty years? and at whst price 
can we appraise the misery, the sufferings, the anx- 
ious cares and mental anguish of patriots, statesmen 
and warriors? and of persons in every condition and 
relation 6f life during that term? 

But do these embrace all the items of the a©* 
count? Ah! no! we have to add the lives of 200,000 
men, slain in the field, or who perished in prisons, 
or in camp of the diseases incident to military ser> 
vice. It is computed, that upwards of eleven thou- 
sand unfortunate American captives perished in the 
Jersey prison ship! Of these two hundred thou- 
sand, 70,000 are the estimated American loss, and 
100,000 the British loss,* and 30,000 that of France, 
Spain and Holland. 

And for what object were these enormous sacri- 
fices of blood and treasures made? Was it on the 
part of the United States the amount of the uncon- 
stitutional taxes imposed? The question needs no 
reply. The struggle of our ancestors, it is well 
known, was for their natural and constitutional 
rights, and the security of liberty *>r themselves, 
and for us their posterity. This was their object, 
and for its attainment they counted not the cost. 
This object they acquired, and have bequeathed to 

* British Eneyelopeola, 1791. 



S6 



THE EXAMINER, 



wui sacred legftty, which we are bound, by the 
most solemn obligations, to transmit, in all its puri- 
ty, to the succeeding 1 generation. 

I7aving r calcuUted the cost, let us proceed to cal- 
culate the present value of the Union. This calcu- 
lation too, in the spirit of the times, must be made 
in dollars and cent*, although we consider the pe- 
cuniary considerations involved in the question of a 
dissolution of the Union, great as they be, to each 
and all the states composing it, to be utterly insig- 
nificant, in comparison with those of a political cha- 
racter. - 

But before this question can be discussed, one, 
previous in its nature, ought to be decided— and 
that is, into how many parts is the Union to be di- 
vided. Where are the lines of division to be drawn 
when the principle of attraction, which now binds 
the States to a common centre, should be destroy- 
ed? Who can say what new combinations will be 
formed? what new systems will be created, and to 
what new laws they will be subjected? The only 
mode by which in the event of a dissolution, we 
can arrive at a rational conclusion, as to the combi- 
nations of the parts, is to consider and determine, 
which, of the parts possess a paramount common 
interest: for a war among various actors will na- 
turally cause identity of interest to colleague for 
mutual safety, and advantage. In what section then 
of the States composing the confederacy, does that 
principle of cohesion exist, except in the States 
south of the Potomac' These States are bound to- 
gether by a tie which, if separated, must to them be 
fatal. Their existence depends on their union, at 
least among themselves. That these states would 
form one division, admits not of a doubt. 

Where shall we look for another? Will it be form- 
ed of the western states? Is there any common 
J principle of union among them sufficiently power- 
ul to bring tbem together as a- distinct confedera- 
cy? None such can be found. Is there any antago- 
nist principle between them and particular states; 
and attractive principle between them and other 
•sates? The former may be found to exist between 
them, and the middle and the north. Although 
the protected articles, lead, hemp and wool, of the 
west, might in the event contemplated, produce 
less? yet, the loss, if any, would be infinitely repaid 
not enly by obtaining the articles of the produce 
and manufacture of the latter, consumed among 
them, of better qualities and cheaper rates; but all 
foreign articles on much better terms than they 
now procure them. If the Union be dissolved, the 
protecting system will be the cause of it. In that 
event, those States which lose by it and those which 
gain by it, or those which lose more than they gain, 
will not be likely to unite. In some parts,the sys- 
tem will be preserved, in others, it will be abolish- 
ed. To the Western States it is unprofitable: to 
the Southern States more so; although we will not 
admit it to be profitable to any; yet, in a majority 
of the States composing the Eastern and Middle 
sections, it is deemed to be so. Therefore, the 
west and the south would probable coalesce, as their 
interest, geographical positions and relations, poli- 
tical and local associations and connections, must all 
co-operate to produce such a result. 

How would the eastern and middle sections 
stand affected? Both would require a continuance 
of the protecting system; but the middle would have 
it apply to cotton, iron and wool only, the eastern 
would have it apply to woollens, cottons, glass, 
fish, oil. — What therefore, would promote the in- 
terest of the former, would injure the interest of the 
latter, and vise serao. The middle would obtain 
every article raised or manufactured in the eastern, 



better and cheaper, from other sources. But such is 
not the case of the latter: for the important and __ 
necessary article of flour, can no where be procured 
so cheap, nor of better quality. The interests of 
these two sections could not be made to be recipro- 
cal — consequently, early associations, ancient pre- 
judices, rivalry in particular interests, difference in 
manners and habits, would operate to produce a 
distinct combination of the two sections. In the 
event, therefore, of a dissolution of the union, from 
the present, three, or perhaps four, distinct con- 
federacies, would probably be formed, viz. the 
southern and western, the middle and the eastern* 
comprising the New England states. As the. in- 
terest of the' latter most nearly concerns us, we will 
consider the operation and effect of such an event 
upon her prosperity. 

The great interests of New England are naviga- 
tion, manufactures and the fisheries. By a dissolu- 
tion of the union, the parts respectively would con- 
stitute separate nations, states or confederacies! 
and be so considered by themselves, and by foreign 
powers. 

The first severe blow would be on the navigation 
interest. It would strike one half of it out of em- 
ploy, and consequently would, in effect, be destroy- 
ing such a portion of it, or what is the same 
thing, the whole would be reduced to one half ita 
present value. 

Let us take a nearer view of the subject. 

The whole quantity of cotton exported to foreign 
countries from the United States during the year 
ending the 30 September, 1831, was 277 mil lions of 
pounds, costing 25 millions of dollars: of rice, dur- 
ing the same period, 116,517 tierces, costing two 
millions: of tobacco, 86,718 hogsheads, costing 
4,892,388 dollars: of manufactured tobacco, 3,667,- 
823 lbB. costing 292,475 dollars: of naval stores 299,- 
314 barrels costing 397,687 dollars: of flour 1,806,* 
529 barrels, costing 9,938,458 dollars. These are 
the great articles of export from the southern and 
western states, most of which are not produced in 
any part of New England, and none of which are 
exported from it. Other articles of exportation pe- 
culiar to the other states, and common to all, such 
as wheat, corn, &c. are emitted as not essential to 
the argument. 

Now, if 1300 lbs. of cotton be assumed as the 
average per ton register, which ships will carry} 
to transport 277 millions of pounds, will therefore 
require 213,077 tons. And if three hogsheads of 
tobacco for two tons register, be assumed as the 
average which ships will cawry; to transport 86,718 
hogsheads, 57,812 tons of shipping will be required 
for the purpose; and to transport manufactured to- 
bacco at 2000 lbs. to a ton, will require 1800 tons of 
shipping more. Of rice, 4 tierces to the ton may be 
allowed as a fair average. At this rate, to transport 
116,517 tierces, will require 29,100 tons of ship- 
ping. 

Of flour and naval stores, ten barrels per ton re- 
gister may be assumed as the average rate of load- 
ing. And as the quantity of flour exported in the 
year 1831 was greater than usual, in consequence 
of the scarcity in Europe, we will take one million 
barrels of flour as the average annual quantity ex- 
ported. We shall then have 209,304 barrels of na- 
val stores and 1,000,000 of flour— 1,200,000— at 10 
per ton, will require 120,000 tons of shipping to 
transport to market. 

These several items will give the following agw 
gregate— 

Cotton 213,077 tons, costing 25,289,492 

Tobacco 57,812 do do 892,388 

Manufactured do 1800 do do 292,475 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



47 



Naval 
Flour 
Rice 



120,000 tons, costing 397,687 
29,100 do do 2,000,000 



421,789 34,372,042 

If to this we add ] 78,211 10,627,958 

for unenutnerated articlea, as wheat, corn, meal, 
lumber, live stock, pork, bread stuffs, &c we shall 
not be beyond the truth. The result then is forty- 
five millions of dollars value* and a bulk requiring 
600,000 tons of shippings and this, with the excep- 
tion of about one-half the Quantity of flour export- 
ed, would be exclusively from the southern and 
western states. But it will be assumed, that the 
vessels employed in carying these commodities to 
market, may perform on an average, two voyages a 
year; therefore, the trade of those states will five 
an annual employment to 300,000 tons of shipping, 
and from 15 to 18,000 seamen. 

This relates to the foreign trade only. And as 
these states, and those composing New England, 
would constitute distinct powers, we should be ex- 
cluded by the English navigation acts, from carry- 
ing any of the products of these states to Great Bri- 
tain, or to any of her colonies. She and they, fur- 
nish a market for four* fifths of our domestic exports; 
consequently, such portion of our trade would be 
totally lost, and we cannot expect, in such circum- 
stances, to be the carriers for other nations, all of 
whom would view us as rivals, and with jealousy; 
and would soon place such impediments in way of 
such a trade, as to deprive us of any participation in 
it. In short, should the contemplated event occur, 
the whole of that important and lucrative employ- 
ment for our navigation, would be lost forever. 

But this is not the only loss our navigating inter- 
est would sustain. What will be the fate of the 
coasting trade? Where will a market be found for 
articles of manufactures, oil, dry and pickled fish, 
fcc the former can be obtained from Europe from 
25 to 30 per cent cheaper, and the latter from the 
British provinces at a proportionally less rate. Fo- 
reigners will supply the southern market, and fo- 
reigners, from the advantages they will enjoy, will 
supplant us in the coasting trade. Details are un- 
necessary" as the results must be obvious to the in- 
telligent snd reflecting. 

The enrolled and licensed tonnage employed in 
the coasting trade exceeds 600,000 tons. Can any 
doubt exist that one-half of this would be sacrificed 
by a dissolution of the union? less than this cannot 
be anticipated. Of vessels in the foreign trade we 
nave shown, we believe, a loss of 300,000 tons of 
shipping, and by the coasting trade, a loss of as 
much more. Here then would be a sacrifice of 
600,000 tons of shipping, and more than one-half 
of the whole, and employ for 30,000 seamen. 

The whole tonnage of the United State, register- 
ed, by the last report of the secretsry of the trea- 
sury, was 1,191,976 tons, of which 582,111 were 
owned in the New England states. One half of 
the whole being thrown out of employ would be a 
loss to those states of 291,555 tons and the employ 
for 15,000 aeamen. The average value a ton may 
be estimated at $40, at which rate their loss, in this 
item of the account, would exceed eleven and an 
half millions of dollars! 

If one-half of the whole tonnage be thrown out 
of employ and rendered useless, one-half of those 
who build, as well as those who navigate them, must 
also be thrown out of employ; consequently, the 
lsbour of one-half the shipwrights, blacksmiths, 
blockmakers, sailmakers, riggers, cordage manu- 
facturers, caulkers, joiners, mastmakers, boat build- 
ers, painters, timber cutters, fee. now employed in 



constructing and keeping in repair nearly 300,000 
tons of shipping will be dispensed with. 

What number of the above occupations will be 
thus rendered idle? 

The' time expended in building ships is variously 
estimated; but twenty-five days a ton will not exceed 
the actual expenditure, comprehending the work- 
ing of all the materials used in their construction. 
Considering the nature of the work and the climate, 
250 days as the average labour a year will be am- 
ple. At this rate to build 300,000 tons of shipping 
would employ 30,000 men for one year. But the 
average duration of ships is 10 years, or a loss of 10 
per centum per annum; the labour required bv 
ware and tare, and damage by perils of the sea, will 
be 10 per cent more— consequently 6000 mecha- 
nics in those professions will be unemployed. 

Nor are those the only classes of the community 
to be affected by the calamity we are considering. 
Every individual who derives his subsistence or em- 
ploy from the foreign or coasting trade, or both, or 
whose occupations are directly or indirectly con- 
nected with, or dependent upon them or either of 
them; must also feel the effect. Less capital will 
be employed, and the capitalist must feel it; the 
docks, wharves, and warehouses will be leas need- 
ed; and the proprietors of them on this account* 
will feel it: merchants and their clerks, officers of 
insurance companies, and banks, pilots, stevedores, 
labourers, and cartmen, will feel it The persona in 
these occupations in New England who would lose 
their employment would amount to many thousands* 
The aggregate, comprising seamen, mechanics, and 
all others, would not be less than forty thousand 
men. 

The next interest to be affected injuriously by a 
dissolution of .the union, is that of manufactures. 

The southern and western states contain a popu- 
lation exceeding seven millions. These sections 
are supplied from New England with cotton and 
woollen manufactures, hats, boots, shoes, soap, can- 
dles, sperm oil, butter, fish, &c. &c; and these 
states receive annually in return, 150,000 bales of 
cotton, half a million barrels of flour, sugar, rice, 
corn, tobacco, &c. of the value often millions of 
dollars.* 

Now we should lose by the event contemplated, 
this market, composed of seven millions of people, 
because they could procure these articles with 
which we now furnish them, at a much cheaper 
rate from other sources. To preserve that market 
we must sell as cheaply, articles of the same quality 
as they can be obtained elsewhere. But this can- 
not be; if it can, the system of protection is useless, 
and the union endangered for no pecuniary object* 
Thus the articles we furnish those sections, are not 
essentially important to them; but what we receive 
from them is so to us. The manufacturers of cotton 
must be supplied with the raw material. Flour, rice, 
&c. are indispensible; How then are we to pay for 
them? The labor of this section being unprofitably 
employed, its products required and received go- 
vernment protection. But this protection is of no 
advantage to the manufacturer in foreign markets, 
open to similar products of labor, requiring and re- 
ceiving no protection from the country from which 
they are exported. As the Southern and Western 
sections, will stand in the relation of a foreign coun- 
try, two things will become necessary to enable us 
to pay for what we receive of them. 1. Equal skill 
and economy with foreign manufacturers; and 2d. 

t * These imports would be diminished by the cause 
which diminishes the means to pay for them; but la a 
far less degree. 



se 



THE EXAMINER, 



equal prices in the sale of them. Experience and 
observation may give the first; and a fall of the wa- 
ges of labour to the foreign standard (six pence a 
day) may enable us to conform to the last. 

But those manufactures which cannot exist with- 
out government protection, would, by a dissolution 
of the Union, be prostrated: for the market from 
which the benefits of that protection are now deriv- 
ed, would be closed to them. The States, that 
should from necessity, continue the protective sys- 
tem, would manufacture only for themselves, and 
And no market beyond their own limits. The shut- 
ting up of every external channel, would cause a 
reflux, overwhelming and destructive; or a cessation 
at the sources of issuing the customary supply, either 
of which would be alike disastrous. The markets 
without the New England States, for their protected 
manufactures, may be estimated to contain eight mil- 
lions of people; those within them at two. If then 
the former be lost, four-fifths of the present con- 
sumption would be lost; and consequently the de- 
mand and supply would reciprocally diminish in the 
same ratio: Or if, in these circumstances, the sup- 

Sly continue without diminution, corresponding re- 
action of price, or other equivalent sacrifice must 
ensue. This, as a general principle, will not be de- 
nied, although, there may, at times, be some varia- 
tions in consequence of the operation of extrinsic 
causes. Let the effects then of those causes be con- 
sidered. 

The immediate effects will be upon the proprie- 
tors of the establishments. They would find em- 
ployment for one-fifth only of the number of hands 
they had previously employed; and, consequently, 
for a like part only of their buildings, machinery 
and money capital. On the two first therefore, there 
must be a similar proportion of loss in the value; and 
of profits, by a diminished amount of capital em- 
ployed, if the business itself be profitable. 

The effects that would next succeed would be 
upon the operatives. Four-fifths of these being 
without employ, the wages of labor must fall in the 
same ratio. But as employment for all cannot be 
furnished, a portion must seek other occupation ei- 
ther at home or abroad. But this evil will not be 
peculiar to them: All other occupations will, more 
or less, be suffering the same effects from the same 
cause. 

The proprietors of manufacturing and other work- 
ing establishments may partially recover by being 
enabled by the fall of labor to make and sell their 
articles cheaper, but this.if accomplished at all, will 
not be until after severe suffering. 

The effects upon the fisheries must be similar to 
those upon manufactures, though not to the same 
extent. The largest and best markets will be lost, 
because in this as in the last case, foreign competi- 
tion would not be precluded by government pro- 
tection. 

If we should find it difficult to pay for the neces- 
sary importations from the South; we should be dri- 
ven to still narrower straits to find the means of pay- 
ment for similar importations from Europe. These 
are now almost exclusively paid for by Southern 
and Western productions.* Let the adherents to 

* Let the facts be adduced in support of this assertion. 
The report of the Secretary of the Treasury states the 
total value of foreign articles imported into toe V. States 
In 1&31 to be 103.191.114; and the total value of the do- 
mestic articles exported 61.277.057 dollars. These sums 
are agreeably to that report thus apportioned: 

The New England States imported 16.490.101, and ex- 
ported 6.691.855, difference Dr. 9.798.846. 

The Middle States imported 69.99S.150, and exported 
19.336.364; difference, Dr. 49.836.799. 



the exploded doctrine of the balance of trade and of 
impoverishment to the country by the exportation 
of specie, ponder these things. 

Although we are not believers in the dogmas of 
those creeds, yet, we think, we can perceive diffi- 
culties that would arise from such a state of the coun- 
try, that would to us, be insurmountable: for until 
the products of labor at home, are as cheap as the 
products, of labor abroad, they cannot be a medium 
of foreign commerce. 

Thus we shall find, that a dissolution of the Union 
would, in effect, destroy one half of our tonnage, 
and throw out of employ forty thousand persons, 
who now are employed by navigation. That our 
manufactures would be prostrated, the population 
employed in them in want and idleness, the fisheries 
crippled, and foreign commerce destroyed.f 

From prosperity to adversity, from employment 
to idleness, from abundance to want, are changes of 
condition, which cannot fail to produce a correspon- 
ding change of character and of feeling in the peo- 
ple; uneasiness, discontent, and violence will ensue. 
The element of popular tumult will be set in mo- 
tion; and when once the popular tides begin to 
flow, driven by the fury of a needy, hungry, exas- 
perated populace who can prescribe its limits? Emi- 
gration would exhaust our energies. The active, 
enterprising and intelligent part of the people 
would quit the homes of their fathers for more fa- 
voured lands. 

A superficial view of the subject must produce 
the conviction, that a dissolution would be fatal to 
our prosperity and happiness. What intrinsic allure- 
ments does New England possess? What advantages 
of soil or climate? What means of foreign commerce, 
of wealth, of profitable industry ? In all these par- 
ticulars, we shall find, on examination, that we are 
far below the other sections of the Union. — If New 
England now possesses wealth, it has been derived 
from foreign sources. Her industry, her enterprize 
and her sagacity obtained their reward from other 
regions. Tne fruits of a particular class of labor had 
centered here. 

No, it is not for the soil, the climate, the local ad- 
vantages, the means of wealth and abundance she 
possesses, that we love New England: It is for her 
population — their intelligence, habits, manners and 
customs. — It is for her institutions, civil, religious, 
literary, and social: It is for her origin, the high and 
holy purposes which gave her existence. It is for 
her history, her attachment to liberty — the wisdom, 
patriotism and courage she displayed in that noble 

The ait States between the Potomac and Mississippi 
river, 9.547.416, and exported 17 389. 671 ; difference Cr. 
14.849.955. 

The other States, districts and territories, 14.930.451, 
asd exported 17.829.169; difference, Cr. 3.898 716. 
Total imported, 103. 191. 181. Total exported, 61 .877.057. 

It will be peroeWed, that while the sis Southern States 
export nearly fifteen millions more than they import,that 
the New England States export nearly ten millions of 
dollars less. — And it must be remembered that the whole 
is mainly carried to market bv New England ships, and 
further the balance against os it greater than it appears: 
for the large importations into New York are in part for 
New England consumption. Many articles heretofore 
imported direct into these states, are now imported into 
that, or are there purchased to be consumed in the latter 
States. 

f An idle population will soon become a vicious one. 
The consequences of idleness, poverty and want, may 
be seen in Europe. Look at the effects in England when 
from any cause large numbers of manufacturers are thrown 
out of employ. Would the bayonet here as mere- silence 
the mursauraof a starving naHituda? 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



59 



cause which dignified the nature of man, and stands 
unrivalled in the history of the world. 

If New England would continue to be what she 
is, let her cling* to the Union. — If she would conti- 
nue the Union, let her cling to the principles by 
which it was produced. Without these she will be 
desolate. With them she will flourish and " blos- 
som as die rose. A Republican. 

Massachusetts. 



PHILADELPHIA: 



Wednesday, September 17, 1834, 



Having now completed the publication of the ele- 
mentary documents promised in No* 1 of this vo- 
lume of (he Examiner, we shall have room hereaf- 
ter for our usual supply of editorial remarks, which, 
we can a— uce out readers, nave not been suspend- 
ed from any abatement of seal on our part, but 
from considerations which rendered such a course 
expedient. .Every one must see, that iu a publica- 
tion designed for future reference, it is of import- 
ance, that the texts of the doctrines intended to he 
propagated, should be m the hands of every new 
disciple, and as the first volume of the Examiner 
could no longer be supplied, it appeared to.ua that 
the success of the work would be greatly promot- 
ed,, and its usefulness augmented, by our pursuing 
the course we did; and here we will take occasion 
to offer a, few observations for the benefit of those 
who have not yet become familiar with the doctrine 
of State Bights and State Remedies, as to the im- 
portance of those elementary documents. 

The Declaration of Independence which stands first 
in order, is the instrument, not .only by which the 
determination of the thirteen Colonies of New 
Hampshire, Massachusetts Bsy, Rhode Island and 
Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, 
New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, 
Virginia, North Caroline, South Carolioa, and Geor- 
gia, to become independent on the mother country 
and to erect themselves into separate State$ or na- 
tions, was proclaimed to the world, but it is also the 
instrument by which the great principles of civil 
liberty and the right of man to self-government, 
Were first laid down as axioms intended tube imme- 
diately applied to a practical purpose* Amongst 
these axioms is that indisputable one which ought 
never to be lost sight of by freemen, that in order 
to secure the unalienable rights of man, '• govern- 
ments sre instituted among men, deriving their just 
powers from ihe content of the governed, that when- 
ever any form of government becomes destructive 
of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter 
or abolish it, and 'to institute anew government, 
laying its foundations on sueh principles, and organ- 
izing its powers in such form as to them shall seem 
most likely to effect their safety and happiness." 

It was no doubt foreseen by the eminent men 
who planned and conducted to its glorious issue the 
American Revolution, that a mere separation from 
the mother country might prove to be a calamity 
instead of a blessing, Unless accompfiahed under 



the influence of the spirit of liberty. For where 
would have been the advantage of exchanging a 
royal despotism for a popular despotism? None 
whatever, and hence we find the position clearly laid 
down, in the Declaration, not as a mere truth appli- 
cable to the particular case in question, but as an 
eternal truth, applicable to all countries and to all 
ages, that governments have no just authority but 
from the consent of the governed, and that where 
governments fail to accomplish the ends of their in- 
stitution, the people have a right to alter or abolish 
them, and to institute others in their place. The 
general acceptance with which the principles here 
promulgated, have met, not only throughout the 
United States but amongst the friends of liberty 
throughout the world, has stamped them with the 
character of universal acknowledgment and none 
but the advocates of legitimacy, and of the Divine 
Right of Kings pretend to dispute their authority. 

The second document in order, is the instrument 
entitled " The articles of Confederation," which 
constituted the first regular compact for the form- 
ation of a common government for particular pur- 
poses, entered into by the said thirteen separate 
states. And in looking at that document, we aee 
at once confirmed the position laid down in the 
Declaration of Independence, that the late colonies 
had become thirteen States or nations, and not one 
State or nation. For, it is expressly declared in Ar- 
ticle II. that "Each State retains its sovereignty,, 
freedom and Independence," which could not have 
been the case, had ,not each possessed those attri- 
butes of nationality, prior to the formation of this 
compact. 

The third document is the Constitution of the 
United States, a work which should be so familiar 
to every citizen of this confederation of republics* 
that even children should be able to answer every 
ordinary question connected with the rights of their 
fathers, arising under it It is by that instrument, 
tha£ is to be tested, the validity of all the acts In- 
formed by our public servants, whether they occu- 
py the Legislative, the Executive, or the Judicial 
department of the government, and it is that in 
which are. seen clearly defined, (he powers intended 
to be conferred upon the Federal government. 

The reader, after he shall have properly imbued 
his mind with the elementary trutha contained in 
these three important documents, and after he 
shall have become familiar with the history of the 
formation of the Federal government, as briefly set 
forth at page 10, will be enabled to judge for him- 
self, whether the Alien and Sedition laws enacted 
by Congress before the government was ten years 
old, and which by obtaining the sanction of the 
President, and the Judicial confirmation of the Su- 
preme Court, were invested with all the forms of 
constitutionality, were or were not in accordance 
with the constitution. He wiU farther be enabled 
to judge, whether the course pursued by Kentucky 



80 



THE EXAMINER, 



and Virginia, in order to arrest the progress of what 
they conceived to be a usurpation of power on the 
part of the Federal government, was or was not a 
legitimate course, and according as he shall make 
up his opinion, must be the character of his politics. 
If he approve of the reasoning of Jefferson and Ma- 
dison, he will be a State Remedy man; if he disap- 
prove of it, be will be a Consolidationist. There is 
no middle ground, and it behooves every citizen, 
who desires the preservation of the Union, to exa- 
mine the subject with calmness and impartiality. 

Oaths of Officc.—By the Constitution of South 
Carolina, amendments can be made thereto by the 
passage of a bill to that effect by two-thirds of each 
House of two successive legislatures. It is known to 
our readers that at the last session of the legislature 
a bill was passed, providing for an amendment, 
changing the form of the oath of office, and that, as 
this bill requires for its final enactment, the action 
of the legislature, which is to be chosen in October 
next, a considerable degree of excitement prevails 
throughout the State in reference to the approach- 
ing canvass. In order that the real nature of this 
question may be understood by those who do not 
reside in South Carolina, we have been at the pains 
of transcribing into this number of the Examiner, 
the oaths of office required by the Constitutions of 
all the States in the Union, as also the bill referred 
to, providing for the amendment of the Constitution 
of South Carolina. Upon a perusal of all these do- 
cuments, we cannot but think, that every unpreju- 
diced mind will conclude, that the party in South 
Carolina which complains of oppression, because a 
majority of the people of the State desire a solemn 
pledge of fidelity to the commonwealth, in terms 
no stronger than are required from office-holders in 
New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Georgia, are 
making "much ado about nothing." For why 
should the use of the term " allegiance," be more 
oppressive to a South Carolinian, who wants office, 
than to a citizen of the other States named ? Why 
should Daniel Huger object to an oath that Daniel 
Webster has no objection to take? Why should 
Joel R. Poinsett revolt at an oath that Isaac Hill 
* must take. Why should James L. Pettigru choke at 
an oath that his neighbour James M. Wsyne would 
swallow without hesitation? 

But after all what is required by an oath of alle- 
giance that is not equally embraced by an oath 
pledging support to the constitution of the State, 
which is required in every instance, but in that of 
Virginia. Why it has been there omitted, we are 
unable to say, but would any man infer from that 
omission, that the citizens of the State holding of- 
fice would not be bound by allegiance to the State, 
in case she were to exercise the right maintained by 
alt her Republican statesmen, of withdrawing from 
the Union ? We apprehend that no one will reply in 
the affirmative. In reference, however, to the ques- 
tion of allegiance, we r « fc ' the reader to an article 



under that head, copied from the Charleston Mer- 
cury in this day's paper, which, in our humble opi- 
nion, is so conclusive on the subject, that we are 
not able to conceive of the possibility of its refuta- 
tion. 

The following is a copy of the Bill which is the 
present cause of so much excitement, real with 
some, and pretended with others, in South Caro- 
lina: 

A BILL, To alter and amend the Fourth Article of 

the Constitution of the State of South Carolina. 
Be it enaetedt by the Honorable the Senate and 
House of Representatives now met, and sitting in 
General Assembly, and by the suthority of the same, 
That the fourth article of the Constitution of this 
State shall be amended so as to read as follows: 

Every person who shall be chosen or appointed 
to any office of profit or trust before entering on the 
execution thereof, shall take the following oath: 

" I do solemnly swear, (or affirm,) that I will be 
faithful, and true allegiance bear to- the State of 
South Carolina, so long as I may continue a citizen 
thereof, and that 1 am duly qualified according to 
the Constitution of this Stats, to exercise the of- 
fice to which I have been appointed, and that I will, 
to the best of my abilities, discharge the duties 
thereof, and preserve, protect and defend the Con- 
stitution of this State, and of the UnUed States. So 
help me God." 

In the Senate House, the nineteenth day of De- 
cember, in the year of our Lord one thousand 
eight hundred and thirty-three. We certify that 
the above bill has been read, during the present 
session, three times in the House of Representa- 
tives, and three times in the Senate, and was agreed 
to by two-thirds of both branches of the whole Re- 
presentation. PATRICK NOBLE, 

Speaker of the House of Representatives. 
H. DEAS, * 

President of the Senate. 

Locke's letters to Thomas Ritchie.— In the month 
of February, 1833, soon after the appearance of 
Mr. Jackson's Proclamation, annihilating the Sove- 
reignty of the States, a series of letters, six in num- 
ber, appeared in the Richmond Jeffersonian, under 
the signature of " Locke," upon the doctrines of 
the Virginia Resolutions of *98, which were ascrib- 
ed to Judge Abel P. Upshur, of Northampton 
county, Virginia. They were subsequently pub- 
lished in pamphlet form, and as they constitute one 
of the most sound and argumentative expositions of 
those doctrines, which has appeared since Mr. Ma- 
dison's report, we think we shall render the read- 
ers of the Examiner an acceptable service by giving 
them a place immediately after that document The 
first letter is therefore published to-day. The rest 
will follow in order, and we think it will puzzle 
Messrs. Ritchie, Rives, Stevenson, and the whole 
new school of Virginia State Bights — Proclamation 
— Force Bill politicians, to controvert a single one 
of the positions laid down by the writer. In fact it 
is preposterous to talk of State Rights without 
State Remedies, and this is so conclusively demon- 
strated by Locke, that no one who possesses a com- 
mon understanding, and who can divest hit mind 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



61 



of prejudice and roan-worship, can fail to perceive 
it 

Tke Bank.*— We give place in this day's Examin- 
er to a communication from our old correspondent 
" Hermann/* whose name is well known to the read- 
ers of our former paper, the Banner of the Consti- 
tution. He was a firm friend of Mr. Jackson, prior 
to his Proclamation, of the 10th of December, 1832, 
and only abandoned him, as other honest men did, 
when he deserted the principles, for his advocacy of 
which, he was elected to the Presidency. The zeal 
displayed by oar correspondent for the re-charter of 
the Bank, has no connexion with private interest, 
as we are assured that he does not possess a share 
of its stock, but, as in other instances, has probably 
been produced by the indignation excited at the 
means resorted to by Mr. Jackson, in order to accom- 
plish its overthrow. 

In publishing this communication, we are not to 
be considered as responsible for its contents. Whilst 
we accord with it fully in its denunciation of the un- 
lawful procedure of seizing upon the public purse, 
as well as in the testimony it bears to the respecta- 
bility of the President and Directors of the Bank, 
we have seen no reason to change our original opi- 
nion of the unconstitutionality of any corporation 
chartered by the Federal government. 

Value of the Union.— We invite the attention of 
the reader to the article in this day's Examiner upon 
M The value of the Union.*' It is from the able pen 
of i descendant of one of the most distinguished of 
those revolutionary patriots which New England 
produced, and will be found to contain a body of 
the most conclusive arguments in favour of cultivat- 
ing at the North, that spirit of good will towards 
the South, which can alone render durable our hap- 
py Union. Although the writer has expressed the 
opinion, that nothing but the protective system 
would be likely to cause a dissolution of the Union, 
yet it is palpable that another question which has 
assumed a prominent aspect, since the period at 
which his essay was written, is quite as likely to 
produce that result, and it is owing to the recent ex- 
citement in the public mind on that subject, that we 
consider an increased interest will be felt in whate- 
ver may be calculated to shew, how deep a stake 
the Northern States have in the preservation of the 
Union. The statistical facts and commercial calcu- 
lations furnished by our correspondent, possess 
great value, and will be found useful for reference 
upon many occasions where the importance of the 
Southern States to Northern commerce and naviga- 
tion, are to be examined. 

Sovereignty of the Untied Stales.— In looking over 
the South Carolina Ordinance of Nullification, we 
perceived, that the form of attestation ran in the 
following words:—" Done in Convention at Colum- 



bia, this 24th day of November, in the year of our 
Lord 1832, and in the fifty-seventh year of the De- 
claration of the Independence of the United States 
of America,'' whereas the two ordinances subse- 
quently passed In March, 1833, concluded as follows: 
— "and in the fifty-seventh year of the sovereignty 
ami Independence of the United States of Ameri- 
ca." 

Knowing the avidity with which the friends of 
Consolidation seize upon every expression which 
might be construed as having a tendency to establish 
their favourite doctrine, and presuming that there 
was some reason for this discrepancy in the phrase- 
ology, or that it was an oversight in the transcribing, 
we addressed a letter to a distinguished member of 
the Convention on the subject, who has given the 
following satisfactory and conclusive answer. 

"Charleston, 18 June, 1834. 
Dear Sir: — 

You express some surprise that in the attestation 
to the Ordinance of South Carolina, nullifying the 
Force Bill, as well as in that Repealing the Ordi- 
nance Nullifying the Tariff, the words should have 
been used, ** in the fifty-seventh year of the Sovereign- 
ty and Independence of the United States of America" 
when in the latter Ordinance the words are M in the 
fifty-seventh year of the Declaration of Independence 
of the United States ofJmerica," and ask for the rea- 
son of this difference, seeming to think that the 
acknowledgment of the sovereignty of the United 
States, may be construed as an admission that ours 
is a single nation under a consolidated government. 
Now you will observe that we have in the cases ob- 
jected to, adopted the usual form which was depart- 
ed from in the first instance as it appears tome with- 
out any sufllcient reason. The use of the terms 
'•We the people of the United States," in the pream- 
ble of the Constitution has, we all know, been relied 
upon to prove that the people of the United States 
formed the Constitution in their aggregate capacity, 
and therefore, that we were then and haver ever 
since continued, one people— a single nation, and that 
the several states, if they ever possessed it, have lost 
their sovereignty. But I read these words " we the 
people of the United States," as meaning neither 
more nor less than we the people of the several 
states united TooETHBH, for special purposes, spe- 
cified in the Constitution, purposes in no respect 
inconsistent with the sovereignty and independence 
of these States severally. The preamble to the Con- 
stitution, (as you have shown*) was originally fram- 
ed in these words. — •« We the People of the States 
of New Hampshire," &c, and these words were al- 
tered to " We the People of the United States," by 
a committee whose authority extended no further 
than to correct the phraseology — the words "we the 
people of the United States" being supposed to mean 
neither more nor less than " we the people of the 
several States united together for certain purposes." 
No political dreamer then imagined that it could 
ever be contended (in the face of the historical fact 
that the constitution was actually submitted for rati- 
fication to the people of the several states in their so- 
vereign capacity, and that no state was to be bound 
except by her individual consent as a State)— ih&x the 
constitution was formed by and derived its authority 
from the whole people of the United States collecti-vc- 
ly. The words "the United States" therefore can 
never be rightfully construed to mean any tiring 
* Sea page t5. 



62 



THE EXAMINER, 



more than the " States of New Hampshire, South 
Carolina, &c. united together for special purposes," 
— and •« the people of the United States** can mean> 
nothing more than the people of theue several States 
thus united, When we speak of " a citizen of the 
United States,'* we can mean nothing more than a 
citizen of these several States f — a citizen of one being 
according to an express provision of the Constitution 
a citizen of all.— In this view of the subject, no sub- 
stantial objection exists to the use of the terms 
M the sovereignty and Independence of the United 
j States/' which means nothing more than the sove- 
reignty and Independence of the several States 
which have become united for certain purposes, ac- 
cording to the provisions of the Constitution, which, 
let it be observed, in no respect impairs State Sove- 
reignty. This form of attestation to public acts has 
been long established, and it seems to me to be 
yielding far too much to our opponents to admit that 
properly understood they imply the sovereignty of 
the United States as one nation. 

When the Ordinance nullifying the tariff was 
adopted,-— out of abundant caution, and to exclude 
the conclusion which was sometimes drawn from the 
words " the sovereignty and Independence of the 
United States," — these words were not used in the 
attestation. When the subsequent ordinances were 
adopted, however, the usual words were used, fur- 
ther reflection having I presume satisfied the minds 
of the members as it certainly satisfied my own mind 
that they really implied nothing more than the sov- 
ereignty and Independence of the several States. 
Surely no one would have doubted on this point, if 
the words used had been " In the fifty- seventh year 
of the sovereignty of New Hampshire, South Caro- 
lina, &c, united together according to the terms and 
provisions of the Constitution," and the words- used 
certainly imply nothing more. I do not know that 
the subject was formally brought to the view of the 
Convention, and it may be that the attestation may 
have been annexed in the usual form, A a mere cle- 
rical act. But I rather think that it was deliberately 
adopted under the views herein stated, which have 
entirely satisfied me, that there is no occasion what- 
ever to change the established form of attestation to 
public acts. 

) If this explanation is of any value, you may make 
any use of it you may think proper." 

The Next Presidency.— We are amongst those who 
believe that the period has not arrived for the State 
Kights party to nominate their candidate for the 
Presidency. Before that be done, a mighty work 
is to be accomplished in breaking down the usurpa- 
tions of the Executive, and as the friends of State 
Sights in the effort to break down the usurpations 
of Congress, united themselves with the Jackson 
party, so will they find it necessary in the accom- 
plishment of the present work, to unite themselves 
with the Anti-Jackson party. In so doing, howe- 
ver, they will of course, avoid committing them- 
selves in favor of any candidate for the Presidency; 
The elections of this autumn as well as all those of 
the year 1835, precede the Presidential election, 
and it will be* ample time many months hence, for 
those to think of mm, who care only for principles. 
In the mean time we can occupy ourselves in disse- 
minating the doctrines of State Bights, the only 
thing to be relied upon for rendering our success 



ultimately certain, and shall stand ready to avail our* 
selves of all the incidents that the chapter of acci* 
dents may bring forth. We do not see how a party 
professing devotion to principles without reference 
to men, can give their support to any candidate for 
the Presidency who is opposed to their doctrines, 
and it is for this reason, that every effort should be 
made to bring over to our side, as many converts as- 
possible. If our success in the next two yearsahould 
be as proportionally great as it has been within the 
last twelve months, we might calculate upon holding 
the balance of power throughout the Union, as ws 
now already do in the Senate of the United States, 
if we should not be able to command a majority. 

The Recent Elections. — The accounts given of the 
returns of the recent elections in different States, 
are so mixed up with party misrepresentations, that 
it is pretty difficult to pronounce with any confi- 
dence, what the resuk has been. 

In Kentucky, the Jackson party has unquestiona- 
bly been defeated. Inr North Carolina, it has proba- 
bly been defeated. In Alabama, it has triumphed'. 
In Rhode Island, rt has been defeated. In Illinois, 
and Indiana, the Anti-Jackson Governors have been 
eleeted, but we know nothing of the complexion of 
the Legislatures. Jacksonism has undoubtedly had 
bad luck this fall, but whether or no the people are 
to be effectually cured of it before another year, re- 
mains to be seen. Shoald Ohio, or Pennsylvania, 
or New York, go against it at the approaching elec- 
tions in October and November, it will receive hs* 
coup de grace. In such event the honest portion of 
the Jackson party must from the necessity of the 
case, rally under the State Rights flag. The rest 
will go to the consolidation party, to which they at 
heart belong, and the campaign will then assume 
the true character of a war for principles, between 
the advocates of power and the advocates of strict 
construction. Whenever the contest assumes this, 
form, the success of the States Rights cause is cer- 
tain* and it is therefore of infinite importance, that 
the Jackson party should be defeated. 

Georgia* — The general election in this State for 
members of Congress, and members of the State 
Legislature wiU take place on Monday the 6th of 
October. The following is the Congressional ticket 
of the State Rights party, embracing a body of great 
respectability and talent: 

STATE RIGHTS TICKET FOR CONGRESS. 

RICHARD H. WII.DE, of Richmond. , 

GEORGE R. GILMER, of Oglethorpe. 

ROGER L. GAMBLE, of Jefferson. 

THOMAS F. FOSTER, of Greene. 

WILLIAM C. DANIEL, of Chatham. 

DANIEL NEWNAN, of Murray. 

ABSALOM H. CHAPPEL, of Monroe, 
• MIRABEAU B. LAMAR, of Muscogee. 

ROB'T. AUGUSTUS BE ALL, of Bibb. 

The first four named gentlemen are members of 
the present Congress. The election is by general 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



6a 



ticket, throughout the State, so that the result will 
■how the real strength of parties. 

Governor Troup.— —The opinions of this distin- 
guished gentleman have for many years had a pow- 
erful influence upon public opinion in Georgia, ow> 
ing to the soundness of his political views, and the 
consistency of his conduct His silence, however, 
for some months past, since he retired from the 
Senate, gave occasion for both parties to claim him; 
but he has recently put an end to all doubts as to 
which side he belongs, as will be shown from the 

following extract: 

From the Mtoon Messenger. 

Got* Tbo«f arrived in Ibis city on 1 tiesday last Our 
State Rights cittcens wishing to testify their respect^ to 
their veteran leader, addressed him the following in- 
vitation to a pubVic dinner— -annexed *e also give his re- 
ply. After raeeiviag the eoogvatvjatioiis of a great num- 
ber of our ciiizent, he left the place on yesterday morn- 
ing for the Indian Springs. 

Macoh, July 29th, 1834. 
7b George M Troup: 

We the undersigned committee, appointed in behalf 
of a portion of (he State ttiahls party of Bibb county, 
are instructed to ask respectfully your acceptance of a 
public dinner to be given in this city at such time as may 
best subserve your convenience. The committee feel 
assured that this tender of regard is made in considera- 
tion of the high sense they and those whom they repre- 
sent, entertain of your eminent public services, rendered 
to the people of Georgia, and in your more enlarged 
sphere of political action to the country in general. 

With sentiments of the highest esteem, we have the 
honor to be, your fellow citizens, 

THOMAS R. LAMAR, *1 

IVERSON K. JONES, 

CHARLES COLLINS, > Committee. 

LEMUEL NEWCOMB, I 

LEVI ECKLEY. J 

Miaov, July 29th, 1834. 

Gentlemen:— 'Accept my acknowledgments for your 
recollection of any services I may have formerly render- 
ed — they are not without recompense when my fellow 
citizens of Macon so affectionately extend to roe the band 
of friendship: it is all I could ask and all 1 will receive. 
It may be my bappjnessto mingle *ith them again; whe- 
ther I do or not the State Rights party of Georgia have 
my best wishes for their success— engaged on the side 
of liberty, against a vicious and corrupt Government, 
they must eventually triumph. The enlightened young 
men of the country, whatever may become of the old and 
imbecite, will live to achieve and enjoy it 

With great consideration and regard, gentlemen, youc. 

G.M. TROUP. 



fellow citizen, 
THOMAS R. LAMAR, 
IVERSON H. JONES, 
CHARLES COLLINS, 
LEMUEL NEWCOMB, 
LEVI ECKLEY. 



Committee. 



The Senate* — Ever since Mr. Jackson declared 
. war against the Senate, for refusing to confirm some 
of his appointments, and for standing up in defence 
of the Constitution and Laws, in opposition to his 
dictatorial will, his partizans all over the Country, 
imbued with'.the genuine spirit of consolidation, have 
raised a hue and cry against this last remnant of our 
confederate system. True it is, that many profess- 
ing devotion to the rights and sovereignty of the 
States, have joined in the crusade, through igno- 
rance of the tendency of their measures, but the 
major part consist of those who hare no fixed, prin- 



ciples to govern them, and who are ready to applaud 
any course pursued by their leaders, which they 
consider calculated to retain in the hands of their 
party, the power and patronage of the government. 
With these last, we would not pretend to reason. 
The man who is under the influence of the worship 
of his fellow man, is beyond the reach of argument, 
and can only be cured of his folly, or corruption, fry 
a positive downfall. To the former, we would offer 
a few words of counsel, and would earnestly solicit 
them to reflect, for a moment, upon the result to 
which hostility against the Senate, may ultimately 
lead. 

At the time of the formation of the Federal Con- 
stitution, it is well known, that the strong govern- 
ment party were desirous to do away with the State 
sovereignties, and to form, what they termed, "A 
National Government." Their design was to esta- 
blish one splendid consolidated empire, making one 
people of thirteen separate bodies ot people, and 
thus reducing the States, each of which had cau- 
tiously asserted its reservation of its freedom, sove- 
reignty and independence, to mere corporations. 
Against this scheme, the republican party most 
strenuously opposed themselves. They knew that 
liberty could only be preserved within smalL juris- 
dictions, and that one general code of laws could 
not possibly extend over a wide expanse of country, 
without infringing upon individual rights, more than 
would thirteen distinct codes of laws, adapted to the 
circumstances, habits, and feelings of the inhabitants 
of the different States respectively. They there- 
fore refused to unite in the formation of a govern- 
ment that would inevitably swallow up all the State 
sovereignties; and as one of the chief means of pro- 
tection against such a catastrophe, insisted that each 
State, whether small or large, should be entitled to 
an equal representation in the Senatorial body. Had 
it not been for this provision, the government, 
though nominally federal, would have been virtu- 
ally consolidated; for, had the representation in the 
Senate been proportioned, like that of the House of 
Representatives, to population, the small States 
would at once have lost their whole weight and in- 
fluence, and would have been wholly insignificant 
when coming into coi^ict with the large ones* 
What would the States of Delaware and Rhode 
Island be, in comparison with Pennsylvania and 
New York, if they had no more power in the Senate 
than they have in the House? Nay, what would 
even North and South Carolina, and Georgia be> 
Mere hewers of wood and drawers of water, to the 
Urge States, who would trample them under foot, 
and rob and pillage them at pleasure. 

And this is the institution that Mr. Jackson and 
his partisans are endeavouring to destroy. This is 
the body, at this moment offering the only guaran- 
tee for the sovereignty of the States, which men pro- 
fessing attachment to the rights of the States, are 
anxious to see overthrown. Sad indeed will be the 



04 



THE EXAMINER, 4c. 



day, if such a consummation can be achieved. Li- 
berty might then hide her head, and flee for refuge 
to Turkey, Austria, or Russia, as better adapted to 
afford her shelter, than the hideous despotism that 
would be erected on our soil. We exhort, we 
, earnestly exhort all who have been led astray by 
tla^ir party passions, in reference to this mighty 
question, to ponder well what we have said, and to 
withdraw their countenance from any scheme which 
has for its object, the overthrow of the Senate. 
That body now stands as the bulwark to protect the 
people against Executive usurpation. It will some 
day be needed to protect the States from the power 
of a consolidated '* National Government." 

In order that it may appear that we have not con- 
jured up an ideal object of attack, we subjoin the 
following article, which recently appeared in the 
organ of the Jackson party in Philadelphia. 

fkom the Penneyhanian. 

THE UNITED STATES' SENATE NOT A 

DEMOCRATIC BODY. 

In the Senate of the United States, one citizen of 
Delaware has the same influence as— 
1 1-4 of Mississippi, 
1 1-2 of Louisiana, 

1 5-8 of Rhode Island, 

2 of Missouri, 

2 5-8 of Illinois, 

3 1-4 of Alabama, 

4 1-2 of South Carolina, 
4 5-8 of New Hampshire, 

4 7-8 of Vermont, 

5 of Connecticut, 
5 of Maryland, 

5 1-8 of Georgia, 
5 1-4 of New Jersey, 

5 7-8 of Indiana, 

6 7-8 of Maine, 

8 1-4 of North Carolina, 

9 of Kentucky, 

9 1-4 of Tennessee, 

10 1-2 of Massachusetts, 
12 of Virginia, 

18 of Ohio, 

22 3-4 of Pennsylvania, and 

33 1-2 of New York. 

The first sixteen States on the list are over repre- 
sented, while Ohio is not half represented, Pennsyl- 
vania about one-third, and New York less than one- 
fourth, f 

One half the population of the United States, is 
represented by thirty-nine Senators, while the other 
half is represented by only nine. 

The twenty-four Senators representing the first 
twelve States, have only 2,158,274 constituents, 
while the twenty-four representing the last twelve, 
have 8,263,010— being nearly four to one. 

The four Senators from New York and Pennsyl- 
vania, have upwards of one million more constitu- 
ents than the twenty-four Senators who represent 
the first twelve States on the list, and constitute one 
half that body. 

The two Senators from New York alone have 
more constituents than the twenty-two representing 
the first eleven States above named. 

8ucb articles as this are designed to appeal to the 
prejudices of the ignorant. The small States are 
declared to be over represented, and the large 



ones to be under represented ; whereas the truth is, 
that each State is represented precisely according to 
the bargain,* and therefore one cannot be over, nor 
another under represented. But do not these con- 
solidationists in disguise, know that in pursuing this 
course, they are biting a file? Do they not know, 
that it is expressly declared in the 5th Article of the 
Constitution, that " no State, without its consent* 
shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Se- 
nate," and that consequently no alteration of the 
Constitution, but by an unanimous vote of all the^ 
States, can break down this great preservative prin • 
ciple of State sovereignty ? If they do not, it is high 
time for them to study the elements of the govern- 
ment which they seek to destroy, and not advocate 
a measure which could only be carried into effect 
by a Revolution. If that is their design, let them* 
apeak out like men, and own it 

Rhode Island Oath* of Office. — Since the article on 
page 51, was placed in type, we have received the 
following copy of the oaths of office administered in 
this State by law. 

(Form of Oath for Governor, Lieutenant Governor, 
Members of the Senate, General Treasurer, and Se- 
cretary of State, viz:) 

••You, , being by the free vote of 

the freemen of this State of Rhode Island and Pro- 
vidence Plantations, elected unto the place of , 

do solemnly swear (or affirm) to be true and faith- 
ful unto this State, and to support the Constitution 
of the United States; that you will faithfully and 
impartially discharge and perform all the duties in- 
cumbent on you in your aforesaid office, according 
to the best of your abilities and understanding, ac- 
cording to Law: So help you God!" 

(Form of Oath for a Representative in the Gene- 
ral Assembly, viz:) 

'•You, — , being chosen to the place 

of Representative in the General Assembly, do so- 
lemnly swear (or affirm) that you will be true and 
faithful to this State of Rhode Island and Provi- 
dence Plantations; that you will support the Consti- 
tution of the United States, and that you will faith- 
fully and impartially discharge the duties of your 
aforesaid office, to the best of your abilities ana un- 
derstanding: So help you God!" 

(Form of Oath for a Judge of the Supreme Judi- 
cial Court, or Court of Common Pleas, viz:) 

•• I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will ad- 
minister Justice without respect of persons, and do 
equal right to the poor and the rich; and that I will 
faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all 
the duties incumbent on me as a Justice of the Su- 
preme Judicial Court, (or Court of Common Pleas,) 
according to the best of my abilities, agreeably to 
Law: So help me God!" 

Persons wishing to subscribe for the eeeond volume 
of the Examiner, which was commenced on the 6th 
of August, 1834* are informed that the back numbers 
of that volume will be furnished to all, who may 
apply before the first of November. To those who 
may apply after that date, they will be supplied, so 
long as any remain on hand of the edition printed. 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 

■ , 11 1 1 i >■ i .i i i «« 

The Powers not Delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the Stale*, are reserved to the 

States respectively, or to the People Amendment* to the Constitution, Art. X. 

Freedom of Industry, as sacred as frredom of speech or of the press. . Jefferson. 



Vol. II.] 



Wednesday, October 1, 1834. 



[No. 5. 



spair of die Republic. "But open the port of con- 
struction upon the illimitable ocean beyond, and 
launch forth upon its boisterous surface without 
chart or compass, and a man need be neither a pro- 
phet nor the son of a prophet to foresee that the 
ship of state will be soon wrecked. With such » 
principle of administering the Federal Government* 
the Union will not last twenty years longer. 

You appear to think that a strict construction 
would render the Government too weak. Have you 
never thought, sir, upon considering our political 
history, that every assumption of power not clearly 
within the letter of the compact has resulted and 
must always result in weakening the Government? 
Have you never thought that the true strength of 
the Union consists in the affection and harmony of 
all its members? Have you never reflected upon 
the truth and reasonableness of the following memo- 
rable words of Vice President Clinton, delivered in 
the Senate of the United 8tates?— "In the course of 
a long life," said he, *«I have found that government 
is not to be strengthened by an assumption of doubt- 
ful powers, but by a wise and energetic execution 
of those which are incontestable: the former never 
fails to produce suspicion and distrust, whilst the lat- 
ter inspires respect and confidence." 

As a matter of fact simply, nullification exists. — 
Whether it be a rightful remedy or not is another 
and different question. There is scarcely a State of 
the Union, which has not by its Legislature* gojng 
a step beyond even the doctrines of South Carolina 
arrested the execution of Federal acts on the ground 
of their unconstitutionality. The great question is, 
what limits shall be put upon it, and how shall we 
hinder its occurrence? 

Our doctrine is not that a State Legislate re has 
any right to interfere, except to petition and to pro- 
test. It belongs only to the Psoflb of the State to 
exercise this high act of Sovereign Authority. The 
Legislature, therefore, cannot precipitate the Btate 
into such a contest: but when such a " palpable, 
dangerous, and deliberate" violation of the compact 
occurs as to arouse the people to action — to induce 
them to throw off their natural vis inertise, they pos- 
sess the right to interpose and tbey ought to possess 
it. 

The people of a state bound together by the So- 
cial compact, forming a moral person, have consti- 
tuted two attorneys to exercise their inherent sove- 
reign powers. One inyested with general authority 
-♦the State Government. The other with special 
powers* to wit — the Federal Government. Should 
the latter go beyond the prescribed limits, its acts 
are invalid: but it only belongs to the principal to 



ANNUAL COMMERCIAL STAEMENT. 

The value of imports into the United States du- 
ring the year ending 30th September, 1833, was 
#108,118,311, being more, by about five millions, 
than in any former y ear since the period immediate- 
ly subsequent to the last war. 

The exports during the same year ending 30th 
September^ 833, amounted to $90,140,433, of which 
$70,317,698 in value, was of domestic origin. 

The amount of American tonnage which entered 
the ports of the United States from foreign coun- 
tries during the same year, was 1,111,441 tons; de- 
?arted, $1,142,160. Foreign tonnage entered, 496,- 
05 tons; departed, 497,039. 

The tonnage of shipping built in the U. States 
during the year 1832, was 

Registered, . . . 72,982 

Enrolled, ... 71,556 



Total, 144,539 

The whole registered tonnage of the U. States, 
as corrected at the Register's Office, on the 31st of 
December, 1832, was . . 686,989 

Enrolled and Licensed, . . 649,627 

Fishing VeastU, • . 102,832 

Total, 1,439,450 

Of the registered tonnage, 72,868 tons were em- 
ployed in the whale fishery. 

STATE BIGHTS. 

From the National Gazette. 

Mr. Editor — Wdl you permit me through the co- 
lumns of the Gazette, briefly to state a few princi- 
ples of the State Rights Party, whose objects and 
views as a party appear to be misunderstood, by your- 
self and some of your correspondents. 

The first grand leading object — the polar star of 
this party, to whose patriotism a just tribute is at 
least beginning to be paid, is to prevent a ease of 
what u called Nullification from ever again arising 
to disturb the harmony of the Union. This we pro- 
pose to do not by exciting resistance and then put- 
ting it down by force: but, we think, that we have 
hit upon a much more effectual way, not original 
with us indeed, but lying at the very foundation of 
our Federal compact — and which alone can perpe- 
tuate our Union: we mean by compromise, concilia- 
tion and a strict construction of the Constitution. If 
the Federal Congress keep within its prescribed li- 
mitsr— exercise no doubtful powers— no powers not 
expressly delegated — there will he no reason to de- 



06 



THE EXAMINER, 



disaffirm them, which we contend to be the people 
of each state, and not,the State Government. 

Great danger is apprt hended from the abuse of 
this power. But this danger must always exist some 
where. For my own part, it is true I am a Whig; I 
would much rather see it reside with those who have 
parted with most of their powers, and who pay to 
support the exercise of them, than with those who 
possess the powers and who receive and batten on 
the money. 

In short, we think the general government ought 
to consult the interests, not of an absolute majority, 
but, as far as possible, of all the parts: And we are 
for putting such checks upon the majority, as will, 
prevent them from " riding rough shod over the mt- 
nprity," as they have been too often disposed to do. 

Excuse me, Mr. Editor, for one word more. We 
see too much reason to fear that the present excite- 
ment may end in a change of men merely, and not 
(the higher object at which we aim,) a change of 
principles. There are those in the community, 
who are loudest in their opposition to the present 
executive usurpations, who are averse simply to see. 
ing these powers concentrated in the person of An- 
drew Jackson, who would, nevertheless, have no 
earthly objections to seeing them vested in the of- 
fice of President, provided it was filled to their sa- 
tisfaction. It is the latter we oppose as much as the 
former: and do not, I pray you, Mr. Editor, stigma- 
tize us as "unpatriotic and selfish/' if in this great 
contest we raise the banner of Principles, and de- 
sire to be known as not the Anti-Jackson or Ami- 
Van Buren, but the Whig party; or if you please, 
STATE RIGHTS. 



GO- 



BANKS. r— The National Intelligencer contains a 
general abstract of the State Banks in the several 
States and Territoriea of the Union, compiled from 
returns made in the years 1833—34 to the Legisla- 
tures of the several States, and from estimate*! to- 
gether with statements of tie number of Banks, 
and the amount of capital authorized since the said 
returns were made out. From this it appears that 
the number of State Banks are as follows, 

Banks, 



102 

51 

21 

17 

78 

96 

41. 

7 

8 

4 

20 

a 
s 

7 
13 
5 

10 
3 
8 
6 
5 



Maine, . , 

New Hampshire, 

Massachusetts, . 

Rhode Island, 

Connecticut, 

Vermont, 

New York, 

New Jersey, 

Pennsylvania, 

Delaware, 

Mar) land, 

Virginia, 

Ohio, 

Kentaeky, 

Tennessee, 

North Carolina, 

Georgia, 

Alabama, 

Louisiana, 

Missisiippi. 

District of Columbia, 

Florida, 

Michigan, 

Total, 



506 



With a capital of $170,123*792 12 paid in.— The 
number of Banks chartered, but net in operation 
when the above returns were made, is 43, with a ca- 
pital of $30,270,090. Total banking capital author- 
ised and paid in $200,323,791 12. Notes in circu- 
lation #77,438,782 82. Specie end specie funds on 
bend $17,081,704 6*. 



DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STATE 
VENMKNT AND THE FEDERAL 
GOVERNMENT. 

From the Philadelphia Gazette. 

As the question of State Rights is now beginning 1 
to attract the attention of the people of Pennsylva- 
nia, and as many persons have not much time to de- 
vote to abstract subjects connected with the science 
of government, the following remarks are offered 
for their perusal. 

Every citizen ooght to be acquainted with the 
difference in structure between a State Government 
and the Federal Government, inasmuch as, without 
such acquaintance, he cannot pom bly understand 
what is meant by the term State Rights. The for- 
mer, that is, a State Government, is a government 
in which all legislative powers are vested, except 
such as are specially reserved by the people. The 
latter, that is, the Federal Government, is a govern- 
ment in which no legislative powers are vested, except 
such as are specially delegated to it by the consti- 
tution. The difference between the two cases, is 
precisely the same as that between two agents acting 
under powers of attorney, the one having full power 
to do every thing that hi* principal could do if pre- 
sent, except certain matters therein enumerated, and 
the other having only a special power, to do the 
specific things expressed in the instrument, end 
nothing more. 

Thus, by the Constitution Of Pennsylvania, the 
Legislature st Harrisburgh may pass any law it may 
deem to be for the good of the State, except laws 
infringing upon those rights which the people did 
not think proper, when they formed the Constitu- 
tion, to give up, suoh as the right to trial by jury, 
to freedom of speech or of the press, to be secure in 
their houses from unreasonable searches and seizures, 
to be exempt from the quartering of troops upon 
them in time of peace, without their consent, and 
the various other iratters expressed in the bill of 
rights. 

But the Congress at Washington has no power to 
pass any laws, but those which are expressly au- 
thorised by the Constitution. That instrument ex- 
plicitly declares; that "The powers not delegated 
to the United States by the Constitution, ner pro- 
hibited by it to the States, are reserved to the Statee 
respectively or to the people." These powers, 
whatever they may be, which have not been dele- 
gated, and which have thus been .reserved (o the 
respective States, are what are called State Rights, 
and they correspond to those rights under a State 
Constitution, which the people have reserved to 
themselves. 

Now, if the government of a State has no right 
to encroach upon the reserved rights of the peo- 
ple of the State; so neither has the Federal Govern- 
ment a right to encroach upon the reserved rights 
of the States. Upon this point there can be no 
difference of opinion amongst those who believe 
the government administered at Washington to be 
a Federal government? that is, a government formed 
by the people of the States in their separate State 
capaeit(es,%nd not a consolidated government formed 
by the people of the whole twenty-four States at 
, one aggregate mass. But although there be no dif- 
ference of opinion es to the existence of State 
Rights, and to their constitutional claim to ex- 
emption from all encroachments on the part of the 
Federal Government, yet there it a wide diversity 
of sentiment aa to the proper remedy ibf encroach- 
ment. 

One of the parties into which the country is di- 
vided, tnetataifts that the Supreme Court of tile 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



G7 



United States is the proper tribunal for determin- 
ing' the const itutienality of laws. 

The other party holds, that the Supreme Court 
being one branch of the Federal Government, can- 
not be an impartial tribunal, and that there is no 
guardian of State Rights but the States themselves. 
This latter party in support of their doctrine say, 
—-that the Supreme Court can be made by a cor- 
rupt Congress and Executive as corrupt as them- 
serves, by simply increasing 1 the number of the 
Judges which they can do constitutionally, by the 
appointment of a majority of their own political 
views; and they also say, that there are political 
questions involving the dearest rights of the States 
aaxt the people, which cannot be made to assume a 
judicial form, so as be brought before the Supremo 
Court for adjudication, as the reader may learn 
from Mr. Madison's Report on the Virginia Resolu- 
tions of 1799. 

The doctrine which is called in that report, 
'♦State interposition/' which maintains the right of 
a State to interpose to arrest the operation of an un« 
constitutional act of the federal government, is the 
eld republican doctrine, and although there is 
a difference of opinion as to the mode in 
which State interposition should be applied, or as 
to the occasions on which it ought to be exercised, 
yet there is amongst the friends of State Rights, no 
doubt of its legitimacy, in some shape or other, in 
some conoeireable cases. 

What those cases are, it is foreign to our purpose 
to designate, nor shall we point out the modus ope- 
randi. Every State is the best judge of the mode 
and measure of redress, and with it the question 
should be left 

CONGRESS. 
The second session of the 23d Congress will com- 
mence on Monday the 1st of December next. The 
following table will show the representation in Con- 
gvest from each State of the Union, from the organi- 
zation of the Government up to the present time, 
with the several ratios of Representation, as also 
the number of electors to be chosen in 1836. 



* 


1787 


179S 


1803 


1813 


1833 


1833 


1836 


STATES. 


I 

3 

© 


9> 

CO 

© 


a 

o 


a 

5 


3" 

.2 




6 




X 


X 


I 


X 

6 


X 


1 
5 




New Hampshire, 


3 


4 


5 


7 


Massachusetts, 


8 


14 


17 


30 


13 


13 


14 


Rhode Island, 


t 


2 


3 


2 


2 


3 


4 


Connecticut, 


5 


7 


7 


7 


6 


6 


8 


New Yor*, 


6 


10 


17 


37 


34 


40 


42 


New Jersey, 


4 


5 


« 


6 


6 


6 


8 


Pennsylvania, 


8 


13 


18 


33 


36 


28 


30 


Delaware, 


1 


1 


1 


8 


1 


1 


3 


Maryland, 


6 


8 


9 


9 


9 


8 


10 


Virginia, 


10 


19 


33 


23 


33 


81 


33 


North Carolina, 


5 


10 


13 


13 


13 


13 


15 


Sooth Carolina, 


5 


6 


8 


9 


9 


9 


11 


Georgia, 


3 


3 


4 


6 


7 


9 


U 


Vermont, 




3 


4 


6 


5 


5 


7 


•Kentucky, 




S 


6 


10 


13 


13 


15 


Tennewee, 






3 


6 


9 


IS 


15 


Onto, 








6 


14 


19 


31 


Louisiana, 










3 


3 


5 


Indiana, 










3 


7 


9 


Ala bams, 










3 


5 


7 


Mississippi, 










1 


3 


4 


Illinois, 










1 


3 


5 


Maine, 










7 


8 


10 


Missouri, 










1 


3 


4 


Totals, 


65 


105 


141 


181 


313 


340 


388 



DEMOCRATIC DELEGATION 

or THE 

CITY AND COUNTY OF PHILADELPHIA. 

At an adjourned meeting of the democratic dele* 
gates of the several wards and districts of the city 
and county of Philadelphia, held at the Napoleon 
House, on Wednesday evening; August 20th, 1834, 
Gen. John D. Goodwin in the chair, — After the pro- 
ceedings of the former meeting were read and ap- 
proved, the committee appointed at a former meet- 
Log for the purpose, made the following 
REPORT. 

That in order to discharge the important duties 
required of them by their appointment, it will be 
necessary to take a short retrospective view of the 
rise, progress and nature of parties from the forma- 
tion of our government up to the present period, 
that the position of the parties of the present day 
may be clearly understood. In no other country 
in the *orld do parties bear so important a relation 
to the government of the nation as in this. In others 
they are principally directed to elevate or overthrow 
a particular individual or ministry, and occaskmaAy 
to the adoption or rejection of a particular measure. 
But it is a peculiar and distinctive feature of the go- 
vernment of this country, that the people are in foot 
the supreme power, and regulate the whole machi- 
nery of government by the operations of parties 
through the ballot boxes. Parties with us are the 
legitimate offspring of our institutions. . They are 
the means by which the people exercise the power 
seated in themselves. If therefore it is important 
that the government, which is the creature of the 
people, should have a written constitution to mark 
its metes and bounds, so also is it of vast importance 
that parties of the people who are the creators of 
the government, should also have certain fixed prin- 
ciples for their government. It was so in '76, when 
the revolutionary patriots published the memorable 
declaration of independence as the creed of the 
party who opposed the tyranny of Great Britain 
and the tories who advocated their cause. The fol- 
lowing are the principles contained in this invalua- 
ble document: 

1st. AH men are created equal. 

2d. That life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness are unalienable rights, to secure which go- 
vernments are instituted. 

3d. That the people have a right to alter or abo- 
lish, and to institute a new government whenever 
their safety snd happiness require it. 

These form the basis of the noble government 
we now enjoy, and are grand political axioms which 
will hereafter be acknowledged wherever democra- 
cy shall prevail. 

After the peace, and when it was discovered that 
the articles of confederation were wholl> inadequate 
to answer the purposes of the nation, the people of 
the states elected representatives to a Convention 
to form a constitution for the federal government. 
During the sitting of this Convention and after- 
wards, when the result of its labours were submit- 
ted to the people of the different states for their 
sanction, there were two parties— one that opposed 
all clauses in the new constitution, which tended to 
strengthen the administration of the federal govern- 
ment, apprehending danger to the liberties of the 
people from the monarchical tendency of some claus- 
es, the most of which were stricken out, and the 
rest careftilly guarded — »nd the other, advocated 
clauses to strengthen the federal administration,. on 
the ground that so extended a nition required a 
strong government to administer its affairs ad VHiita- 
geously and effectually. Hence aroae the two great 
parties, federal and democratic; for although they 



68 



THE EXAMINER, 



were not distinguished by these names at that time, 
yet the distinction was made, and gradually but pro- 
gressively grew to a head until the passage of ihe 
celebrated Alien and Sedition laws of 1798, in the 
administration of John Adams, effectually separat- 
ed them under the names which afterwards distin- 
guished them. These two laws are so important to 
the subject, that a short abstract of them is neces- 
sary. The alien law authorized the President, at 
his will and pleasure, to order all aliens " to depart 
out of the territory of the U. S. within such time 
as shall be expressed in such order." If the alien 
did not depart, as ordered, the President was au- 
thorized to imprison him for three years, and if he 
should return from banishment without permission, 
the President was empowered to imprison him du- 
ring pleasure. This is the substance of the alien 
law. The sedition law prohibited the people from 
associating together, " with intent to oppose any 
measure or measures of the government," under a 
" fine not exceeding $5000, and by imprisonment 
not less than six months, nor exceeding five years." 
The second section provides "that if any person 
shall write, prin», utter or publish," 4rc. any libel 
•« against the government of the U. S," either 
house of congress " or the President of the U. S," 
with intent " to bring either of them into contempt 
or disrepute," or to resist "any law of the U. S., or 
any act of the President of the U. S." he " shall 
be punished by a fine not exceeding $2000, and by 
imprisonment not exceeding two years." These 
two laws contained the substance of the principles 
of the federal party. They created a strong gov- 
ernment. They carried out the principles they c6n- 
tended for in the constitution. They denied the 
ability of the people to govern themselves, and the 
necessity of a strong Executive arm to keep the 
wheels of government in healthy play— but Jeffer- 
son and Madison thought otherwise,. The latter 
gentleman being then a member of Congress, op 
posed the passage of these laws with all his elo- 
quence and seal: but finding himself in a small mi- 
nority he patriotically vacated his seat in a Con- 
gress that no longer deserved the name of an Ame- 
rican Legislature, and was elected a member of the 
Virginia Legislature, in which he made that master ty 
report which became the text as well as the foun- 
dation of the democratic party, which now began 
distinctly and formidably to array itself against the 
Federal party. Your committee will as briefly as 
possible state the principles contained in this re- 
port, that the difference between the democratic 
and federal partiesonay be clearly understood. It is 
sincerely regretted that the necessary limits of this 
paper prevent the insertion of the whole of this 
admirable document, as the necessities of the times 
require it to be in the hands of every man who sin- 
cerely loves democratic principles and the institu- 
tions of the country. We are compelled however 
to be contented with a very short abridgment of it. 
The democratic principles established by the Virgi- 
nia resolutions, and Mr. Madison's report, and sus- 
tained by the people in the election of Mr. Jefferson 
are, 
1st. The constitution of the United States, as li- 
' mited by the plain sense and intention of the instru- 
ment, contains "the powers of the federal govern- 
ment." 

2d. *' The powers not given to the government 
were withheld from it." 

3d. Forced constructions of the constitution, cal- 
culated to enlarge the powers of the general go- 
vernment tend " to consolidate the states by de- 
grees into one sovereignty," which would result in 
a monarchy. 



4th. An increase of prerogative and patronage in 
the Chief Magistrate of the union is highly dange- 
rous to our republican institutions. 

5th. A union of " legislative and judicial powers) 
to those of executive, subverts the general princi- 
ples of a free government, as well as the particular 
organization and positive provisions of the federal 
constitution." 

6th. Aliens, members of friendly nations, have an> 
asylum in this country by the laws to enjoy •* per- 
sonal security and personal liberty," to acquire pro- 
perty and citizenship in due time. 

7th. In the United States, the people, not the go- 
vernment, possess the absolute sovereignty. 

8th. " The right of freely examining public cha- 
racters and measures, and of communication there- 
on, is the only effectual guardian of every other 
right." The freedom of speech or of the press* 
cannot be restrained by Congress. 

These eight items, together with the great fun- 
damental principles above enumerated, contained 
in the Declaration of Independence, formed the - 
creed of the democratic party, as opposed to the 
federal party of '98. The creed of the federal par- 
ty was exhibited in the alien and sedition, and other 
acts tending to strengthen and consolidate the fede- 
ral government. The difference between the two 
parlies is strikingly apparent, and the happy results 
of the triumph of democracy in establishing her 
principles as the policy of the government is mani- 
fest from the unparalleled increase of population, 
wealth and industry of the nation. 

Partits continued to be divided on these princi- 
ples from '98 until within a few years- But as the 
federal party became weakened by repeated de- 
feats — and as experience fully sustained the practi- 
cability and wholesomeness ot democratic principles 
— and as another generation sprang up who were 
federalists only because their fathers were federal- 
ists, not because they either knew or acted upon 
their principles — as the federal party at last aban- 
doned its name, and successively assumed others — 
as other parties arose, (the antimasonic for instance) 
which drew from the democratic ranks a great 
many sound democrats — as the political contests 
which have taken place since 1823, also separated 
from the respective parties a large number of each, 
and joined }hem to the other, that is,attached many 
old and sound democrats, (who still retained the 
old principles of the party) to the National He pub- 
lican party, and also attached many old and sound 
federalists, (who still retained the old principles of 
their party) to the democratic party, and as the 
democratic party, to accommodate hself to this ad- 
dition of federalists first admitted them as Jackson 
federalists, and afterwards took the name of the 
Jackson democratic party, as distinguished from 
the old democratic party: So from the operation of 
all these causes, the democratic party gradually de- 
clined in principles as it had now become changed 
in name. How can we account for the strange 
avowal of a large proportion of the party to sup- 
port all the measures of an administration right or 
wrong, and an unrelenting proscription of all who 
differ with them, except by a corruption of princi- 
ples heretofore unknown to democrats' Jefferson, 
Madison and others did not support " all the mea- 
surer' of Washington's administration, although 
they always supported the father of his coontryf 
and is it not in the recollection of every man old 
enough to remember that there was a vsst differ- 
ence of opinion in the democratic ranks as to the 
propriety and policy of some of Mr. Jefferson's 
measures, the non-intercourse, embargo, Sec. ? And 
yet who dreamed in those days of being prescribed 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



W 



and thrown out of the democratic party because he 
thought those measures improper or impolitic' 
Who heard in those days of Jefferson men? On the 
contrary, democrats were tried then on the broad 
principles above set forth, and were condemned or 
sustained as they departed from or adhered to 
them. The infallibility of Mr. Jefferson, or any other 
democrat, was no part of the creed. In short, the 
party was not then a mere personal party, but was 
founded upon great and substantial principles which 
were not involved in every measure of the admin- 
istration. The great outlines together with all the 
important features of policy were clearly and accu- 
rately marked; but the coloring and filling up were 
open for discussion, and frequently for difference of 
opinion; democrats never knew, until lately, that an 
absolute submission of the freedom of opinion, on 
subjects of mere policy, is the test of orthodoxy. 

It is not the design of your committee to notice, 
at this time, all the corruptions that have been in- 
troduced into the party by reason of the causes 
above enumerated, as they would swell this report 
to an immoderate length. Nor is it necessary; for 
there is one so strongly and obviously the old fede- 
ral doctrine and so diametrically opposed to demo- 
cratic principles, that we are at a loss which most 
to admire, the hardy daring of the federalists in pro- 
posing it to the democratic party, or the readiness 
with which many democrats adopt and espouse it. 
We allude to the proposed National Convention to 
nominate candidates for President and Vice Presi- 
dent. It is well known that this measure was al- 
most unanimously rejected by the party two years 
ago, and Mr. Wilkins, and in case he should not 
be a candidate, Mr. Dallas were nominated by the 
State Convention, the candidates for Vice Presi- 
dent, with Gen. Jackson for President. Who does 
not remember the cogent and truly patriotic reasons 
that were given by democrats for not agreeing to 
that National Convention? And where are those 
now who were then loudest in denouncing it? What 
are the reasons for adopting it now that were not 
applicable to it then? Mr. Van Buren was then a 
candidate for Vice President, as he is now for Pre- 
sident. Will it be pretended that he is more fit and 
better qualified now for President than he was then 
for Vice President? Or will it be justified on the 
ground that the party is now governed by expedien- 
cy as it was formerly by principles? It is only by 
degrees that men or parties become corrupt. The 
same measure that startled the party two years ago, 
b now embraced by many who were then political 
saints; and we are left in astonishment at the faci- 
lity with which men accommodate themselves to 
circumstances. 

The subject of a National Convention was so tho- 
roughly canvassed two years ago, and has been 
treated upon so largely lately, that your committee 
do not think it necessary to swell their report with 
arguments against it. The following short abridg- 
ment of the subject is all that your committee think 
necessary at present. A National Convention is an- 
ti-democratic. 

Because 1. It is an innovation on old usages — 
"All our Presidents from first to last were nomina- 
ted and elected without a National Convention." 

2. It tends to a consolidation of the States which 
onr forefathers always deprecated as the forerunner 
of Monarchy. 

3. It will enable the chief magistrate to choose 
bis successor or continue himself in,office by the 
government patronage. The precedent once esta- 
blished, we cannot know when it will be wielded 
against our liberties. 

4. A similar measure was proposed by the advo- 



cates of a strong energetic government in the con- 
vention that framed the Constitution of the U. S. 
and was rejected as -dangerous to the liberties of the 
people. 

5. The democratic State Convention of 1832, re- 
fused to sanction it after full consideration. 

6. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island and 
Vermont, have never yet given a single vote for a 
democratic candidate for President; but in a Nation- 
al convention they will have 33 votes to nominate 
a democratic candidate to whom they will not give 
a vote. Thus Pennsylvania which gave a democra- 
tic majority of 50,000 will be overpowered by three 
votes in the nomination of candidates by States in 
the opposition. 

7. in a National Convention, New York with the 
New England States will hold 92 votes, nearly one- 
third of the whole. This power would require the 
united action of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Dela- 
ware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina and South 
Carolina to overcome. Thus all the great democra- 
tic states will be neutralized by New York. 

8. It is a measure.got up by the friends of Mr. 
Van Buren to press him upon the democratic par- 
ty as the next candidate far President to the exclu- 
sion of every other candidate. By which party ma- 
chinery will be substituted for the voice of the peo- 
ple in an election of the highest importance to the 
nation. 

9. The inevitable result will be to sink the small 
states into insignificance, unless they attach them- " 
selves, as satellites, to a large state. Thus section- 
al cabals and jealousies will be engendered dange- 
rous to our institutions. 

10. It will beget a strong energetic government 
by giving a transcendant importance to executive 
patronage to control nominations. 

11. The delegates to a National Convention will 
many of them have a vast distance to travel at their 
own expense of two or three hundred dollars — 
They will be irresponsible to the people, and hav- 
ing no other duty to perform than to nominate the 
candidate, is it unfair to suppose that they will be 
more influenced by the ordinary motives of gain 
that govern men than the high and patriotic motive 
of selecting the best man? 

12. It is a violation of the principles on which 
our government is founded. The election for Pre- 
sident and Vice President was purposely " dispers- 
ed'* over the states to prevent cabals and intrigues 
which is rendered nugatory by a National Conven- 
tion. 

These are some of the reasons why a National 
Convention is not democratic— more might be add- 
ed, but your Committee cannot think it necessary. 
We will refer those who are desirous of information 
on this important subject to the reported speeches 
of the members of the last State Convention, and to 
a series of articles on the subject entitled " The 
Democrat," published lately in the American Senti- 
nel. • c . 

From what we have said it is evident that none of 
the parties now occupy the old ground they cover- 
ed. The federal party has almost disappeared by 
desertion, the changes it has successively under- 
gone, the lapse of time since their principles were 
openly and avowedly acted on, and especially byy 
the large admixture of old democrats who from va- 
rious causes have lately acted with them as Nation- 
al Republicans or Whips. The democratic party 
has also suffered in a similar way, but more espe- 
cially by federalists, and changing their name from 
democrats to Jackson democrats. The anti-maso- 
nic party has gleaned largely from both, so that the 
principal difference between them all is an opposi- 



70 



THE EXAMINER, 



tion to etch -other and an opposition to particular 
measures as they arise, without any of those fixed 
principles which heretofore gave firmness and cha- 
racter to parties and gave tone to the policy of the 
nation. There is no other mode by which we can 
know how, when, and where, we have departed 
from " the principles which characterised the epoch 
of our Revolution," bat by a fair comparison of the 
political doctrines of the present day with them — 
such an examination can alone determine whether 
a recurrence to those principles " ought to be view- 
ed as unseasonable and improper, or as a vigilant 
discharge of an important duty." The approach- 
ing period appears to be happily auspicious lor this 
purpose. The ensuing fall elections will terminate 
the struggle between the supporters and oppo- 
nents of (Ln. Jackson's administration. His admin- 
istration will cease before the terms for wbioh mem- 
bers of Congress elected this fall have expired and 
consequently very Utile can be done to support or 
oppose his administration. There will therefore be 
a com pari tive political calm during which the 
mind may be profitably employed; old and tried 
principles firmly re-established, innovations expung- 
ed, and the hand of good fellowship again extend- 
ed to those who have been for some time separated 
rather upon men than principles. We believe that 
all or very nearly all of the members composing 
this Convention have been supporters of General 
Jackson* but we have not thought it incompatible 
with democracy freely to condemn any measure of 
his administration we believed to be wrong. 
,Tour committee believing that a State Conven- 
tion will be an important and necessary body to 
carry out and establish the suggestions contained 
in this report have herewith reported a resolution 
recommending such a Convention, together with 
other resolutions which they recommend to the 
consideration of the Convention. 

Besolved, That the principles of democracy as 
established by the Declaration of Independence and 
by the elevation of Mr. Jefferson to the Presiden- 
cy »are those upon which our institutions are found* 
edj and those only upon which they can be perpe- 
tuated. 

Resolved, That in the language of the venerable 
Madison, " a frequent recurrence to fundamental 
principles is solemnly enjoined by most of the 
State Constitutions; as a necessary safeguard against 
the danger of degeneracy to which republics are 
liable as well as other governments, though in a 
less degree than others." 

Resolved, That we can confidently appeal to the 
good sense of the democracy of the State of Perm* 
sylvanta to make " a fair comparison of the politi- 
cal doctrines of the present day with those which 
characterized the epoch of our Revolution, and 
which form the basis of our republican constitu- 
tions," and to say whether "a recurrence to those 
principles ought to be viewed as unseasonable and 
improper, or as a vigilant discharge of an impos> 
tantduty." 

Resolved, That the proposed National Conven- 
tion to nominate President and Vice President, is 
an anti-democratic measure, calculated to consoli- 
date the States, which must result in the overthrow 
of our Republican Government and the estsblftsh- 
ment of Monarchy. 

Resolved, That there are many good and sound 
democrats in the State of Pennsylvania who- have 
not acted with the Jackson Democratic party, but 
are willing and anxious to sustain the principles of 
democracy, believing them to be intimately con- 
nected with the welfare of our country. And ae 
the term Jackson Democrats will hereafter to inap- 



plicable to the party, the coming election being the 
last to array parties in support of, or in opposition 
to, Genera] Jackson's administration, therefore we 
can see no good reason why all good democrats 
may not unite in advocating and maintaining the old 
tried doctrines of democracy, and in pulling down 
the many heres es and corruptions which have late- 
ly been introduced into the party. 

Resolved, That this convention do recommend 
to their democratic brethren in each county of this 
State to choose the usual number of delegates to 
represent the county in a State Convention to be 
held in HarrUburg on Monday the 12th day of Ja- 
nuary next, to take the necessary measures to op- 
pose a national convention as an anti-democratic 
mode of nominating candidates for President and 
Vice President, to oppose the elevation of Martin 
Van Buren to the Presidency, for whose particular 
advancement this dangeroue innovation upon demo- 
cratic principles was contrived — to recur to and re* 
establish the old fundamental principles of the De- 
mocratic party — to restore union and harmony and 
good fellowship between citizens professing the 
same principles— end to do such other things aa in 
the opinion of the convention may be thought advi* 
sable and proper. 

The committee appointed at a former meeting of 
the democratic city and county conferenc e re s - 
pectfully submitted by W. F. Van Amringe, John 
W. McGrath, John H. Campbell, Hugh Downing, 
Samuel McGargee. Anthony Quervelle, John E. 
Keen, Thomas S. Smith, Peter Frits, Gen. John D. 
Goodwin, Jonathan Townsend, M. N. Bverly, John 
Miskey, Joseph Reakirt. 

The report having been read and maturely conei* 
dered, was unanimously adopted. 

On motion. 

Resolved, That the proceedings of this Conven- 
tion be signed by the officers, and published in all 
Uie democratic papers of the city and county of 
Philadelphia, and that democratic editors through- 
out the state be requested to give them an insertion 
in their papers. 

On motion, a committee of three from the city, 
and three from the county were appointed to re- 
port to the next meeting, suitable persons for dele- 
gates to the State Convention, to be assembled in 
Uarrisburgh on the 12th January next, agreeably to 
the resolution reported by the committee. 

On motion, adjourned to meet on Wednesday the) 
27th inst. at 8 o'clock, P. M. at this place. 

JOHN D. GOODWIN, Chairman. 



£i£T} ■—««-■ 



AN EXPOSITION 
Of the Virginia Resolution of 1798, in a series of 

Etsav$ t addressed to T7ioma$ Hitchie, by a dUtfu* 

guUhtd citizen of Ftrgwia, underthe signature of 

** Locxx," in February, 1833. 
No. 1L 

In the letter which I addressed to you on the find 
inst., I propounded to you certain interrogatories, 
touching the great principles invoivedinthe present 
measures of the Federal Government. I could not 
wait for your reply, even if there were better rea- 
sons than any which i can now discern, for expecting 
a reply at all. 1 do not expect h, and yet I venture 
to hope for it. You owe it to your own character, 
to your numerous patrons, and to the great causr m 
which you have professed to be a acetous labourer, 
to be no longer silent or myttexieua, upon these en- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



71 



portant topics. Come out, I pray you, in a manner 
•1 once so distinct and unequivocal, as to leave no 
pretence, either to friend or foe, for accusing you of 
duplicity or timidity. 

1 live in a very retired corner of the country, air, 
and seldom get the news until it is news no longer, 
in other places. Hence, at the date of my last let- 
ter, I bad only heard of the President's late message 
to Congress. That most weak and sophistical, yet 
most dangerous document, was never read by me, 
until this morning. It has sunk into a still deeper 
depth of depression, the few lingering hopes which 
I was permitted to cherish, that the constitution and 
public liberty, would survive the administration of 
Andrew Jackson. I shall have something to say to 
you upon that subject hereafter. I proceed now 
to redeem) my promise, in proving, or at least en- 
deavouring to prove, that the Virginia resolutions of 
1798, cannot be carried out in any other manner 
than by nullification. In doing this, I shall go back 
no farther than to the resolutions themselves. I 
shall give to the language employed, no .other con- 
struction than that which every man of plain com- 
mon sense will be compelled Utgive it. This is the 
only fair course of proceeding, for the resolutions 
were intended for the great body of the people, and 
must hare been designed to be comprehensible by 
the meanest capacity. I wHl not do the Legislature 
the injustice of supposing, that they intended to 
wrap up in mystery which none but the statesman 
or the man of learning could penetrate, principles 
which they deemed essential to the preservation of 
constitutional liberty. 9o much of those resolutions 
as relates to the present subject, is in the following 
words:— 

•'That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremp- 
torily declare, that it views the powers of the Fede- 
ral Government as resulting from the compact to 
which the states are parlies, as limited by the plain 
sense and intention of the instrument constituting 
that compact, as no fartlier valid than they are au- 
thorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; 
and that in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dan- 
gerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the 
said compact, the States who are parties thereto, 
have the right, and are in duty bound, to interpose 
for arresting the progress of the evil, and for main- 
taining within their respective limits, the authori- 
ties, rights and liberties appertaining to them." 
"That the good people of this Commonwealth, 
having ever felt, and continuing to feel, the most 
sincere affection for their brethren of the other 
States* the truest anxiety for establishing aud per- 
petuating the union of all* and the most scrupulous 
fidelity to that constitution which is the pledge pf 
natural friendship, and the instrument of mutual 
happiness; the General Assembly doth solemnly ap- 
peal to the like dispositions in the other States, in 
confidence that they will concur with this Common- 
wealth in declaring, as it dot* hereby declare, that 
the acts aforesaid; [the alien and sedition laws,] 
are unconstitutional; and mat the necessary and 
proper measures will be taken by each, lor co-ope- 
rating with this State, in maintaining unimpaired, 
the authorities, rights and liberties, reserved to the 
States respectively, at to the people."* 

In these resolutions, the following principles are 
distinctly affirmed: 

1. That the Constriction of the United States is a 
Compact between the States, as such. 

2. That the Government established by that Com- 
pact, possesses no power whatever, except what 
"the plain sense and intention" of that Compact 
gives to it. 



3. That every act done by that Government, not 
plainly within the limits of its powers, is void. 

4. That each State has a right to say whether an 
act done by that Government, is plainly within the 
limits of its powers or not. 

5. That the States are not bound to submit to, 
but may resist, any act of that Government, which 
it shall so decide to be beyond the limhs-of its pow- 
ers. 

All this is plain enough, and is, as I understand, 
fully admitted by yourself. The only difficulty is, 
to discover in what mode the Resolutions contem- 
plated that resistance should be applied. On this 
subject, I have to remark, in limine, that the Reso- 
lutions contemplate that " the necessary and proper 
measures will be taken by each State" for itself. No 
uniform mode of resisting the eucroaclunents of the 
Federal Government is pointed out or suggested. 
Having affirmed the right, each State is left to its 
own mode of asserting it in practice. Taking the 
terms of the Resolutions in their utmost latitude* 
they authorize any meant of resistance whatever. 
Such, however, is clearly not their meaning. A very 
slight analysis will force upon us the conviction that 
no mode of resistance is contemplated, except 6ucb 
as will preserve the Union unimpaired* while it will 
effectually put down the usurped power. This is 
shown — 

1. By the profession of "sincere affection" for 
the people of the other States; of "anxiety for est** 
blishing and perpetuating the union of all*" and of 
•*the most scrupulous fidelity to the Constitution." 
It is upon the strength of these feelings, and with a 
view to these objects, that the co-operation of the 
other States is iuvitedL 

2. The interposition of the States must be in such 
mode as to " arrest the progress of the evil" 

3. It must at the same time be such as to " main- 
tain within their respective limits, the authorities, 
rights and liberties appertaining, to them. " > 

4. It is to be remarked, that we have here * dis- 
tinct declaration that there is within the Constitution 
of the United States, some principle* by which the 
encroachments and usurpations of the Federal Go- 
vernment may be resisted. I -say, within the Con- 
stitution, and not extra-constitutional and revolu- 
tionary. 

And now, Sir, will you be good enough to tell me 
in what manner that principle is to be applied? Per- 
mit me to examine all the modes of resistance 
which occur to my own mind, ano> to see which of 
them is within the principles thus asserted. 

1. Petition, remonstrance, protest.— It cannot, J 
think, be seriously asserted.thai the*e are any means 
oi resistance at all. it is such a resistance as your 
slave may make, when you chastise him for an im- 
puted fault. If all right of farther resistance be dis- 
claimed, this is an implied admission that the party 
to whom the appeal is addressed, may, if he choos es, 
persevere in the wrong. In point offset, however* 
remonstrance and protest are founded u\ the idea 
that there is such right of farther resistance.. Peti- 
tion is a simple appeal for mercy, or forbearance* 
protest and remonstrance, affirm a right, and tltrealen 
the enforcement of it. B%t they do not in themselves 
enforce it, and therefore are not resistance. 

2. An appeal to arms.— This is utterly against all 
notions of constitutional remedy. Pur Government 
is founded in free choice, and is supported by, pubhe 
opinion atone. A resort to arms, therefore, would 
at once change the whole genius of tho .Constitution* 
A case might certainly arise, in wMcb.a State ought 
rightfully resort to arms for the purpose of putting 
down or resisting the usurpations of the Federal 



79 



THE EXAMINER, 



Government. Suppose, for instance, tbatthe Pre- 
sident should send a regiment of bis standing army, 
to turn our Legislature out of doors, and pull down 
the capitol, I ^presume that Governor Floyd would 
be clearly right in calling upon the militia to put 
every soldier of them to the sword, if the civil au- 
thority should prove unable to •'arrest the progress 
of the evil" At all events, the Legislature might 
authorize him to do so. This, however, is an ex- 
treme case, and such as could not have been anti- 
cipated; for the Government could not exist a day, 
with an administration capable of such an outrage. 
An actual appeal to arms, therefore, is not to be 
thought of, as among the proposed modes of resist- 
ance* 

3. A repeal of the unconstitutional law by Con- 
gress. This, I perceive, is one of the President's 
modes, but unfortunately, he is not very apt to dis- 
cern the principles which his measures involve. 
This would, indeed, be a complete remedy for the 
evil, and an ample redress of the wrong. — You 
know, however, sir, that although you may •* call 
spirits from the vasty deep," it is not certain that 
tney will ** come when you do call them." It is not 
likely that the usurper will either acknowledge his 
usurpation, or lay down his usurped power. You 
must remember, too, that the usurper in the present 
case, is a majority of the people, usurping upon (he 
right* of the minority, and the history of the tariff 
laws, ought to convince you how unapt such usurp- 
ers are to give way. This remedy, therefore, would 
be of little value in practice. Besides, it is in prin- 
ciple, a simple appeal to the wrong doer, and is there- 
fore, no more a mode of resistance, than the right 
of petition. Every thing is left at last, to the will 
and discretion of the usurping power. 

4. An amendment of the Constitution. I certainly 
should not have mentioned this as a means of re- 
sistance, if it had not been mentioned by the Presi- 
dent, as one of the modes in which the aggrieved 
States, or people, mipht seek redress. No man, but 
one of his peculiar intellect, would ever think of 
an amendment of the Constitution, as a means of re- 
sisting « breach of that instrument. It is not the ob- 
ject to amend the Constitution, but to preserve it, 
unimpaired as it *. 1 hope that the President's fu- 
ture labours, fn the study of the Constitution, may 
show him this distinction. 

5. Secession, or a withdrawal from the Union by 
the aggrieved 8tate. This, sir, is your favourite 
mode, and, as far as I can perceive, your only mode, 
of resisting the usurpations of the Federal Govern- 
ment. The President, however, in the plenitude of 
his merciful consideration of 8tate Rights, does not 
even allow them this humble refuge from oppres- 
sion. Let us now see how you will carry out this 
mode of resistance, consistently with the resolutions 
of 1796. 

In the first place, a State which withdraws from 
the Union, breaks the Union. This is true exvi ter- 
mini, and therefore, need not be proved. But I have 
already shown that the resolutions of 1798, proceed 
upon the idea, that the Union is to be preserved, and 
indeed, that is the main object of resistance, as 
therein contemplated. In this respect, therefore, 
secession is not s means of resistance: within those 
resolutions. 

In the second place, the resistance therein con- 
templated, must be such as will " arrest the progress 
of the evil" Will you be so obliging as to tell me, 
sir, how a usurped power can be resisted, by giving 
*o& hit. In one way, indeed, the evil may be ar- 



rested by secession; the usurped power may be ren* 
dered nugatory, by withdrawing from its reach, all 
the subjects upon which it can exercise itself. I 
can scarcely imagine, however, that this tame and 
submissive idea, was entertained by the statesmen 
of 1798. It appears to my humble understanding, 
that secession, so far from being a form of resistance 
to usurped power, is the precise reverse; it is nei- 
ther more nor less than a running away from the op- 
pressor. And so far from M arresting the progress 
of the evil," it encourages and invites the evil, by 
removing all restraint from the wrong-doer. In this 
view, therefore, it is not within the resolutions of 
1798. 

In the third place, the interposition of the States, 
must be such as to maintain within their respective 
limits, the authorities, rights and liberties, appertain- 
ing to them.'* Now, what are these "authorities, 
rights and liberties?" To you, sir, 1 need not say, 
that as sovereign and independent States, they are 
entitled to all the authorities, rights and liberties, 
which at any time, belonged to them as such, except 
such part thereof, as they plainly surrendered when 
they ratified the Constitution. These they may, H 
is true, enjoy in a stste of separation. But they are 
also entitled to all the authorities, rights and liber- 
ties, which the other States guarantied to them by 
the terms of Union. Among these are to be num- 
bered their just weight in the measures of the com- 
mon government; a share in the common property 
of the whole; protection by the common power; a 
Republican Government assured by that power, and 
all and every benefit and advantage which they 
could enjoy as members of the Union. It was in this 
character alone, that their co-operation was invoked 
in the resolution of 1798. And now, sir, be good 
enough to say, how the authorities, rights and liber- 
ties, which belong to the States, as members of the 
Union, can be " maintained," by their going out of 
the Union. If you cannot, you must feel yourself 
bound, in candour, to admit that in this respect also, 
secession is not within the resolutions of 1798. I 
know you will tell me that these resolutions have 
been much misunderstood. You have already said 
so, and much subtlety in reasoning, and refinement 
in language, have been resorted to by your corre- 
spondents to prove it. It is for this very reason, 
that I have taken such parts of the resolution only, 
as no man can misunderstand, and such as do not 
admit of but one construction. You may refine 
until doomsday, and you will not change the plain 
meaning and object of the plain language employed. 
I have thus examined every mode of " arresting 
the progress of the evil, and maintaining within the 
respective limits of the States, the authorities, rights 
and liberties which appertain to them," which occur 
to my mind, except nullification. It appears, I 
think, clearly enough, that none of these will an- 
swer the purpose. If there be any other mode, you 
will confer a great benefit upon the country, by 
pointing it out. I promised to prove to you that 
Nullification is this other mode, but I must make 
that the business of another letter. I have already 
occupied quite as much space in the Whig as 1 am 
Burly entitled to, and would not willingly trespass 
too far upon the indulgence of its Editors. Besides, 
air, although you may not consider these letters 
worthy of heing anstvered, I am very desirous that 
they should be read, and, therefore, I will make 
them so short as not to deter any one from perusing 
them, and not to fatigue any one over much, who 
shall venture upon that undertaking. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



73 



EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE. 



Clgiy County, Missouri, August 10, 1834. 
Mr. Editor, 
I have no doubt it would be gratifying to you to 
hear, that State Rights and State remedy principles, 
are advancing rapidly in this part of the State; but 
we still continue in a minority. I however flatter 
myself the day is not far distant, when the tables 
will be turned upon the consolidationists. I am sa- 
tisfied in this expectation, from the fact, that some 
eighteen months since, I voted alone against the 
principles contained in President Jackson's Procla- 
mation, at a large and respectable meeting in Liber- 
ty, convened for the purpose of approving the doc- 
trines contained in that document* and now, sir, I 
hazard nothing in declaring, that one-third of jjhc 
voters of this county, are State rights and State re- 
medy advocates, when a proper case is presented. 
I have no doubt it will be flattering to you to be in- 
formed, that your paper has bad its full share in 
producing 1 this result; and let me assure you, there 
are but few who have read the contents of the Exa- 
miner, with care and impartiality, who were free 
from the influence of party shackles, who have not 
been at least thrown into doubts, as it regards the 
true theory of our Government; and many of them 
who denounced State interposition as treasonable 
and revolutionary, eighteen months since, are now 
thorough going State remedy men. We are well 
pleased at the success of sound principles , in the 
Old Dominion; we are also flattered at their rapid 
progress in Democratic Pennsylvania and Ohio, as 
well as New York. Should these three States re- 
turn to the faith of their ancestors, the Republic 
will be saved from the vortex of consolidation: and 
that they will return in time, I will not suffer myself 
to doubt for a moment; but I fear it may not be in 
1836, from the fact of there being three parties now, 
which was not the case in 1800. Were it not for 
this barrier, the prospects are not less flattering now 
than when the issue was joined between the Fede- 
ral and Republican parties, in 1798 and '99, on the 
Virginia and Kentucky resolutions; but, unfortu- 
nately for the country, while the Federal party are 
as true to their principles as the needle to the pole, 
the Republican party is split into fragments. 



PHILADELPHIA: 



Wednesday, October 1, 1834. 



jtn honest difference of opinion, — The following 
are extracts from two letters some time since re- 
ceived by us:— 

"Monroe County, Georgia, 

" I am one of your subscribers for the Examiner. 
I wish you to send me on the thirteen first numbers, 
■s I wish them all, for I design having them neatly 
bound. As I am getting old, and cannot live many 
years more, I wish to have them, that I may be- 
queath them, as a rich legacy, to my children, that 



they may see, when I am dead and gone, that their 
father had espoused the doctrines- of the Examiner* 
which breathes the spirit of republicanism and free- 
dom, and stands m direct opposition to usurpation 
and consolidation." 

M Burke County, Georgia. 

" I have been considerably disgusted at the man- 
ner you have lateley give vente to your malfice 
against Andrew Jackson. Your hole paper has been 
for weeks fill oup^ith such matter that I do note 
think it worth my Time it takes in Perfusing of it* 
ther for I wish you to stope the two numbers of 
which I am subscriber for. I am a Jackson man 
and a Union man and now nullafier as I believed 
you wore, when I so liberold subscribed for your 
paper, tho you ar a free man and I am the same 
ther fore you are welcome to the mony I have paid 
you, so you do not send me any of them. You Will , 
find thate Andrew Jackson and his servizces to his 
country has note ben yet for gotten by a greatefal 
Community, and as I am liberold a nough for stope 
at half the year, you will not think hard in payinge 
the postage of this letter." 

The receipt of these letters, reminded us of the 
following story. A Yankee skipper of a packet 
plying between Connecticut and New York, was 
once requested, by the parson of bis parish, to get 
a New York bank note changed for him, the next 
voyage he made down to the city. As ill luck 
would have it, the skipper forgot his errand, and 
went back to tha land of steady habits without the 
hard money. As he approached the wharf, he saw 
the parson, anxiously waiting for his arrival, and not 
liking to be suspected of neglecting the fulfilment 
of his promise, he prepared himself with a plausi- 
ble story to satisfy the minister, and as soon as he 
landed, accosted him thus:--" On my arrival in New 
York, I took the note to the bank, and asked if it 
was a good note. One of the clerks said it was, and 
just as he was going to pay it, another one stepped 
up and looked at it, and said it was a bad note; and 
so as there was this difference of opinion between 
them* 1 concluded it was about middling, and told 
them I'd call another time, after I had teen the 
owner." 

Now, as one of our correspondents thinks the 
Examiner a good work, and the other a bad one, we 
are inclined to think, with the Yankee skipper, 
that it is about middlin. 

Prisons and Poor houtes.^A very interesting do- 
cument, in pamphlet form, upon the subject of 
prisoners and paupers, has recently appeared in the 
form of M The Second Annual Report of the New 
Jersey Howard Society." The various systems pre- 
vailing in different States, are adverted to, and an 
effort is made to draw the attention of the people 
of New Jersey, to the importance of adopting some 
plan that shall be best adapted to prevent crime and 
pauperism- No branch of political economy pre- 



74 



THE EXAMINER, 



tent* * wider field for improvement throughout our 
country* than prison discipline and legal provision 
for tbe poor. 



A General Welfare Politician. — Jo hit Retnolds, 
Esq., late Governor of Illinois, and a Member of 
Congress elect, in a circular, some months ago, of- 
fering himself as a candidate for a .seat in Congress, 
as a lest of his principles, stated as fellows:-p-That 
be is a friend of equal rights and privileges— that a 
tarifi of protection is constitutional, and necessary 
to render us independent of foreign nations,— that it 
ought to be applied to foreign salt especially, in or- 
der to encourage tbe manufacture of that article in 
Illinois— that be is in favour of Internal Improve- 
ments by the federal government, and especially of 
national roads through his own 8tate, which, he 
thinks, would also be much benefitted by having the 
navigation of some of its rivers improved — that he 
thinks there should be a "Marine" Hospital, for the 
fash water boatmen who navigate the Mississippi, 
and that it ought to be erected in Illinois, in prefer- 
ence to any other State — that the price of public 
lands should be reduced to actual settlers, but to 
nobody else— that settlers should be allowed to en- 
ter 40 acres, which, he thinks, would have the effect 
of * immediately" settling and improving the whole 
country— That pensions ought to be allowed to the 
Rangers, who served in the last war against Great 
Britain, they being as much entitled to it, as the re- 
gular soldiers— that the volunteers, wljo sustained 
losses In the late Indian war, of horses and other 
property, or who were wounded, should be remu- 
nerated, or pensioned— that he has been a uniform 
supporter of Andrew Jackson, whose "Proclama- 
tion of the rOtfi of December, 1832, contains the 
principles by which the constitutional union of the 
States must be preserved, and as sucb should j>e re- 
spected by all.** 

All these measures, the aspirant pledges himself 
to support, and the Illinois Advocate helped him on 
In tfie fbflowtng style— 

"We present our readers with the address of Go- 
vernor Reynolds, who is w still seeking reputation* 
in the halls of Congress. 

" Tbe people whom he addresses, know exactly 
how much credit to give to his promises, for he 
briefly remarks, that he has resided among them 
from his early youth— and so knowing him, they will 
undoubtedly yield to him that support which his 
merits may deserve/' 



Fouche, Esq., and one " On The Right* apd Reme- 
dies of the States," by Daniel Chandler, Esq. They 
both display great ability and research, and main- 
tain the orthodox tenets of the real Union Party of 
the south; that is, the party which proposes to pre- 
serve the Union by respecting the reserved rights 
of the States, and not by trampling upon them. 

We have also before us, in pamphlet form, the 
proceedings of a State Rights meeting, held at Per- 
ry, Marion county, on the 16th of May; including a 
very able address on State Sovereignty, reported 1>y 
a committee, of which Wile* Williams, Esq. was 
Chairman. When we see the strenuous efforts 
making at the south, to enlighten the people, rt 
makes us blush for this our native State, wheTe not 
one man in ten has ever as much as read the Con- 
stitution. 



Georgia.— Nearly all the newspapers of this 8tate, 
concur in tbe declaration, that the cause of State 
Bights is rapidly gaining strength. Associations 
for the dissemination of the doctrines of 1798, have 
been formed in a great number of tbe counties, and 
at the meetings of these bodies, public addresses 
are delivered. We have now before us, in pam- 
phlet form, two delivered on the 3d of June, before 
the State Rights Association of Wilkes county-— one 
M 0n The Sovereignty of the State*," by Simpson 



A National Convention.— Much has been said tn 
the newspapers of late respecting a National Con- 
vention, for the nomination of candidates for the 
Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United 
States. The measure is recommended by the Jack- 
son party, as a republican measure, arid denounced 
by their opponents as an anti-republican one, and 
like all party schemes, is looked upon by the great 
body of the people, as right or wrong, according as 
it happens to suit present purposes. In Pennsylva- 
nia, we know, that in 1832, the Jackson party was 
almost unanimous sgsinst a National Convention, 
and it now seems, that a considerable portion of the 
same men, are in \X% favour. Individuals, probably, 
in other State*, who, two years ago were forH, are 
now against it; whilst others, who were against it, 
are now for it; and all this change has, perhaps, re- 
sulted with many, from the want of their ever having 
understood tbe resl nature of the measure, upon 
which they have so differently decided at different 
times. The subject, however, is one of tbe highest 
importance, as respects the peculiar form of our 
government, and demands the attention of every 
one who believes that form to be/<Wer<d, and not 
national, and who is desirous of seeing it so pro* 
served. The very name is calculated to arouse sus- 
picion, inasmuch as it smells of that same caasolicta 
tion doctrine which was introduced ioto tbe federal 
convention in 1787, and which for a lew days* ac- 
tually imposed upon the republicans of that body, 
and obtained their sanction to the title of National 
Government, 

By the Constitution of the United States, the Pre- 
sident and Vice President, are chosen by electors. 
These electors themselves are chosen by the people 
of each State respectively, by general ticket, as in 
Pennsylvania; or, by districts, as in Maryland; or, 
by tbe Legislature of |he State, as in South Carolina; 
it being left to each State to determine its own, 
mode of election. The number of electors chosen 
by each State, is precisely equal to the joint nun> 
bcr of her Senators and Representatives in Con- 
gress, tad ftftob body of electors called an electoral 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



T5 



college, assembles at an appointed time, at the ca- 
pital of its own State, for the purpose of casting its 
votes. The electoral colleges are not all assembled 
at one place, but at twenty-four different places, and 
no restrictions are placed upon their choice, but 
this— they are not at liberty to vote for any two 
persons who are both inhabitants of the same State 
with, thosaseives. 

Let us now examine and see if we can discern 
amy reason why the ejectors of each State should be 
separately assembled. The mere expense and in- 
convenience of bringing tbe electors from a great 
distance, could nave had little or no weight in de- 
ciding this question. We have seen that these tri- 
lling considerations do not stand in tbe way of the 
assembling of party national conventions, even 
though the expenses are to be borne by contribu- 
tions from private purses* instead of public treasu- 
ries, and we cannot conceive that tbe expenditure 
of a few dollars, every four years, would have bean 
allowed to outweigh great reasons of State: Ko. 
There was a higher motive for the adoption of tbe 
plan that exists, and that motive was, to avoid lia- 
bihty to intrigue and. corruption. Large bodies of 
men are susceptible of being operated upon by in- 
mnencee which cannot be brought to bear upon 
small ones. The three electors of Delaware, assem- 
bled at Dover, or, even the thirty electors of Penn- 
sylvania, assembled at Harrisburgh, each body hav- 
ing directed towards it the eyes of the whole peo- 
ple of its own State, and each having special and 
sole reference to the will of its constituents, cannot 
but decide more independently and uprightly, than 
if they composed a part of an unwieldy snsss oitwo 
asmeVed and eighty-eight individuals, assembled at 
Washingtoe, or at any ether one point. Upon such 
a mass, coming directly into association with the 
candidates themselves, or their friends, the promise 
of office could be played off with such facility, that 
the station of President and Vice President would, 
be sold to tbe highest bidder, and the people be 
thus cheated of their power to choose. To say that 
the electors would be of a class above tbe reach of 
intrigue or corruption, is saying nothing mare nor 
leas, than that they wouM not be men, which will 
hardly be pretended; and examples are not rare 
amongst us, wherein men of great eminence and 
reputed integrity, have, for the sake of office, de- 
parted greatly from the path which their friends 
oeasidevcd them bound to follow. Are the many 
queer things that were said to have happened at 
Washington, in 1825, when the choice of a Prcsi* 
dent devolved wpon tbe House of Representatives, 
already forgotten? Or, do we expect that the peo- 
ple wsM choose for electors, better men than they 
choose t» represent tbem in Congress? 

But this is not tbe only reason why she electoral 
colleges are required to assemble separately. Such 
a course is conformable to the genius of tbe govern^ 
sent, wfcich is WersJ, and not national, composed 



of distinct sovereignties, and not consolidated. 
Hence, it is desirable, that every appearance of con- 
solidation should be removed; and this, no doubt, 
was one of the considerations which influenced the 
framers of the Constitution, in adopting this provi- 
sion. 

Now, if there be any weight in these arguments, 
as applied to a single general college of electors, 
assembled from all the States, they will apply with 
equal force to a national convention. Such a body 
would be liable to all the influences to which the 
other would be subject; and if we take into consi- 
deration the comparatively loose manner in which 
the members would be chosen, wo should think 
more so. There being no legal responsibility , nor 
no liability to impeachment, the auctioneer's hammer 
would be brandished more freely, and the votes of 
whole States would be disposed of, with as little 
ceremony, aaa cargo of merchandise. 

But to a party national convention, a much strong- 
er objection lies, than thst which has Ifeen brought 
into view. A general college of electors would ts- 
present a majority of the people of their respective 
States, and their votes fsniy cast, would fulfil tbe 
will of that majority. Thus the thirty electors of 
Pennsylvania, would speak the voice of a majority 
of tbe people of Pennsylvania. Not so with a na- 
tional convention* They would necessarily be she* 
sen, not by a majority of thepetpk, but by a majo- 
rity only of their party. Nay, they might even an 
chosen by a mere handful of their own party, by the 
noisy oflsce holders and active ofllce hunters^ and 
thus, mstesd of being the organ of a majority of tbe 
people of their respective States, they would be the 
organ of a very smaU portion of tltem* and those 
having a direct pecuniary interest in the election; 
But this is not all. The number of m e mbe r s in a 
party national convention, bears no regular proper, 
tion to population*, as the members of a general 
electoral college would do, nor does it bear even 
any regular piwportioa to the number of the party 
to which H belongs. Bach State, whether tbe party 
in it be strong or weas>— whether it hsve a majority 
or a nuneriry^sends to a convention its full propor- 
tion of members, equal in number to these of its 
electoral college. Thus Pennsylvania would send 
to such a convention, thirty members, even though 
not one-tenth of her population were in favour of 
it. This was in fact done in. reference to the Balti- 
more Van Buren Convention, in l£32j and thus we 
have a practical illustration of the influence of a 
self-created body, having scarcely any constituents, 
for it cannot be .denied, that the weight of tbe Pemv 
sylvania members of that convention, was fejtpw 
oisely the same as if they had been deputed by an 
hundred thousand voters. 

Here,' then, we see the mode in which smsll par- 
ties of men can exercise an important political in- 
fluence over the destinies of the country; and the 
mode in Which small minorities of the people may 



76 



THE EXAMINER, 



choose the President and Vice President. To un- 
derstand the subject properly, let us take the fol- 
lowing case: 

The eighteen smallest States of the Union, (leav- 
ing out Maryland,) have 147 electoral votes, and 
the remaining six States, 141 votes. The former 
contain an aggregate population of 6,082,852, and 
the latter of 6,573,889. Now, suppose the party in 
the said eighteen small States, contained a number 
equal to one-fourth of the population, favourable to 
R. M. Jomrsosr, for the Presidency, that is, 1,500,- 
000 persons, and suppose the party in the other 
States comprised one-half of the population, that is, 
3,250,000 persons, who were favourable to Mabtif 
Yah Bubkh, would it not be absurd and monstrous 
to leave it to a majority of such a body, to select the 
President, — a majority notoriously representing less 
than one-third of the entire party, and not one-eighth 
of the whole population ? Noxme will reply in the 
negative; and yet this is the theory of a national con- 
vention, leNtfce got up to subserve the purposes of 
whatever party it may. 

We are aware, that it will be pretended by the 
advocates of such a scheme, for giving to a minority 
the power and weight of a majority, that a national 
convention does not choose the President, as the 
electoral colleges do, but that it merely nominates 
him'. This argument will not answer. Every body 
knows the influence of party nominations, that they 
are made, by the force of party discipline and orga- 
nisation to be obligatory on the party; and that 
they are certain to command the support of all who 
profess to respect the will of the majority of a party 
delegation : By this means, not only is a minority of 
a party enabled to give the law to a majority of the 
same party, but all idea is lost of State organiza- 
tion. The convention is not that of different States, 
but of a consolidated mass, and nothing would tend 
sooner to overthrow every vestige of our confede- 
rate system, than adopting the precedent of nation- 
al conventions. .Let the friends of State Rights 
look to it in time. Let not devotion to any particu- 
lar candidate lea^d them to countenance a measure 
which cannot fail to conduct us to consolidation ; 
but let them, in the choice of means to accomplish 
their end, follow, as close as may be, — if there 
must be conventions— the wise policy of State as- 
semblsges. 

The Political 8crew.— The State Rights Sentinel, 
of Augusts, has at the head of its editorial columns 
a standing motto in the following words, taken from 
a speech of Abraham Baldwin of Georgia, in the 
Senate of the United States: 

"My own opinion is, that it is the nature of all 
delegated power to increase: it has been very apt- 
ly said to be like the screw in mechanics; it holds 
all it gains, and every turn, it gains a little more." 

If Mr. Baldwin had been a prophet he could not 
have uttered a sentiment, the truth of which would 



rience- of this country. The government of the 
United States from having been a pure confedera- 
tion of States, each of which retained its " Sover- 
eignty, Freedom and Independence," has by a gra- 
dual turning of the screw of power been converted 
into a consolidated empire, one and indivisible. Let 
us not deceive ourselves. If public opinion be ts- 
ken as the guide by which we are to determine 
what is the real form of our government, that opi- 
nion decides it to be one of unlimited powers. In 
the Northern States, not one man in ten has any 
other idea of the federal government, than as of 
one which has no limits to its authority, but the will 
of a majority: and if we look to the South, we find 
a large minority of the people, known as the sub- 
mission party, who favour the same doctrine. And 
how- has this revolution been brought about, with- 
out a convulsion, and without bloodshed? By a sim- 
ple turning of the screw. Congress gave the first 
turn so far back as^he year '91, when it incorpo- 
rated a federal bank. It followed it up by a second 
turn in '98, when it enacted the Alien and Sedition 
laws. The wrench however, in this esse, proved 
unsuccessful. The screw broke, and it was a good 
while before it got mended' so as to enable that 
body to give it another twist. The Supreme court 
then tried its hand at it, and gave several turns, en- 
larging its own jurisdiction. In the year 1818, Con- 
gress tried it again, with the view of getting a pro- 
tective tariff, but finding the screw somewhat stiff, 
went no further than extending for seven years, the 
high duties on cotton goods, which by the law of 
1816, were to have been reduced in three yearn 
from the latter date. In the mean time, the tariff 
party finding their own strength not sufficient to 
turn the screw, invited the internal improvement 
party to lend them a hand, which they readily 
agreed to do, with the understanding, that the mo- 
ney screwed out of the pockets of the people in 
the shape of high duties, should be appropriated 
to the construction of roads and canals. From this 
time forth, the turning of the screw went op brave- 
ly. Every revolution seemed to enlarge the spirit 
of benevolence and liberality. The public money 
and lands were given awaf as freely as water. Re- 
volutionary soldiers who had never beard the sound 
of a drum, were raised up to an extent, that out- 
numbered the very armies of '76, and like the cha- 
ritable ladies of our cities, who go about almost so- 
liciting people to become pensioners on their boun- 
ty, Congress, as generous as a Prince with other 
people's money, were willing to educate, and sup- 
port the deaf and dumb and blind of the whole 
union, and to construct roads, and clear out creeks 
for every township that would ask it. In return for 
all this liberality, the internal improvement party 
redoubled their efforts on the screw, and had it not 
been for two occurrences which stopped the mad 
career of the combined interests, the people would 
have had all their substance squeezed out of them, 
have been more fully established by the past expe- ] Hk e spples under a cider press. One of these occur* 



~s 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



77 



fences was the Maysville veto, which for s while 
stopped the expenditures, end the other was the 
nullification of South Carolina, which stopped the 
receipt*. 

No sooner, however, had the Legislative branch 
of the government been thus driven away from the 
screw, than the Executive thought he would take a 
hand at it. The President thought it was an out- 
rageous thing that Congress and the Supreme 
Court should make the government just what they 
pleased, and so he took the screw into his own 
hands. The first turn he took, was on the 10th of 
December, 1832, which completely annihilated the 
sovereignty of the States, and established a single 
military despotism, over what were before twenty- 
four distinct free republics. Finding that the peo- 
ple were delighted at this his first effort at the 
screw, he gave a second turn, and completely 
crushed the power of Congress, by taking away 
from it the control of the public treasury. This he 
followed up by sundry gentler turns, such as ap« 
pointing cabinet ministers without the advice and 
consent of the senate, denying to that body the 
right to express an opinion upon what it deemed an 
executive usurpation of power, &c. until finally he 
has converted the government into a complete au- 
tocracy in which his will is the law of the land. In 
this position does the matter now stand, and it 
would be difficult to show wherein this government, 
as now administered* is less of an absolute monar- 
chy, than that of Turkey. 

Pennsylvania Politicians.— —The politicians of 
Pennsylvania on the Jackson side, are the easiest 
fellows in the world to fit with political principles. 
They positively have no choice, and it is a matter of 
not the slightest concern, whether the Democratic 
or the Federal doctrines are to be run upon. They 
are always ready for the newest fashion, and what- 
ever be the parly watchword, whether it be State 
. Kights — or Proclamation — up with the Bank — or 
down with the Bank — it is all the same. The very 
men who now figure at the head of the Jackson 
party, are the very same individuals, who in the 
year 1831, got the Legislature of Pennsylvania to 
pass resolutions in favour of the Bank, and who 
would to-morrow get similar ones passed, if they 
thought it would answer their party ends. These 
men have no fixed principles. They do not belie? e 
in any one system of politics more than another, and 
the great body of them are not even acquainted 
with the true ground of distinction between a de- 
mocrat and a federalist. Such are the men who 
have heretofore pulled the wires for the puppets at 
Harrisburgh, but from present appearances their 
reign is likely to be short. We have recently learn- 
ed from private authority, that the party at the seat 
of the State Government, are becoming, for the first 
time, seriously alarmed at the prospects of things in 
the interior. The derangement of the currency 



has produced disastrous effects in the lumber grow- 
ing counties— the Post Office defalcation and ex- 
posures have aroused public enquiry, — state taxation 
for canals and rail-roads begins to be felt by the 
farmers— an expensive system of pubHc education 
has given dissatisfaction to the Germans in the Ger- 
man counties, and as the State and General admin- 
istrations are identified in their minds, symptoms of 
breaking up the Jackson phalanx have appeared in 
several quarters, although it is hardly probable that 
it will be accomplished at the approaching election 
on the 14th of this month. 



Duty on Bow Cotton in England. — One of the 
effects predicted in the United States by the friends 
of free trade, as certain to result from the adoption 
of their policy, was that the governments of Europe 
would gradually acquire wisdom, and follow it up 
by relaxations of their commercial restrictions. A 
London psper contains the following paragraph: 

"Lovnoir, July 22d\ — In the House of Commons, 
a petition from the Cotton Spinners of Preston, in 
Lancashire, has been presented by Mr. Fleetwood, 
praying tor the repeal of the duty on raw imported 
Cotton. The petition whs ably supported, and fa- 
vorably received. Government are in its favor, and 
it is hoped that next year it will be entirety removed. 
This is sound policy. On occasion of a petition 
from Hull against the extension of the bounded 
system in inland towns, thU petition met with but 
few supporters, and we are gratified to find that Mr. 
Ewart, one of the members for Liverpool, opposed 
it. Government continue in its favor, and the de- 
struction of monopoly is one " of the signs of the 
times." 

Free trade between China and England. — The ship 
Sarah arrived at London in July, with a cargo of 
raw silk valued at £400,000, or $1,920,000, being 
the first vessel from Chins, since the trade was 
thrown open by extinguishing the monopoly of the 
East India Company. 

Plain Writing.— Some of our correspondents, 
who send us the names of subscribers, instead of 
writing them as plain as this, TOMMY DUNN, 
use so free a hand, that it is not possible to decy- 
pher them. A story is told of a custom house offi- 
cer, whose business it was to write permits, but he 
wrote them so badly, that he could not read them 
himself, and when once called upon to interpret 
one, he said, he was a permit writer •, not a permit 
reader. We wish that some of our correspondents 
would take a hint from this, as it would save us 
much trouble, and many of our subscribers from 
the mortification of seeing their names changed 
without an act of the Legislature. 

The late Elections.— The election in Missouri has 
resulted in favour of the Jackson party. So has it 
done in Maine. In Vermont the Jackson party has 
been defeated. 

In Charleston on the 1st September, the local el*c- 



THE EXAMINER, 



TO 

tieo for ftfttendant and Wardensy resulted in the 
choice of the 3Ute Rights candidates, by ft majori- 
ty of 33&voUs. 

Tie Old Bonk of the United Strict. ~ The foHow- 
ing.aotsee he* recently appeared in ike Philadel- 
phia papers* 

NOTICE. 

Offiu of the Trustees late Bank of the U. Statu. 
Septcmber3, 1834. 

FIFTH EXTRA DIVIDEND of the remaining 
fends ef Hie trust, amounting to 2 dollars 5 cents 
per share, will be paid to the Stockholders «r their 
legal representatives, on or after the 1st day of Oc- 
tober next J. ROBERTS) Cashier. 

The old Bank of the United States commenced 
operations on the 4th of March, 1791, and its char- 
ter expired by its original limitation, on the 4th of 
March, 1911. Since that date, Uoenty4hret years 
have elapsed, and i{ appears from the foregoing no* 
tice, that its affairs have not yet been entirely closed. 
The capital of that bank was ten millions of dollars. 
We have been politely favored by Mr. Roberts, the 
cashier, with a statement of the amotiwts of the se- 
veral dividends of the capital stock and extra dtvi. 
dends paid to the stockholders subsequent to the 
expiration of the charter, with the dates upon 
which they were respectively paid, which were as 
follows: 

1812— June 1.— 70 pr. cent. 

" Oct. 1.— 18 pr. cent. 

1813— Apr. 1, — 7 pr. cent. 

1815— -Apr. 3. — 5 pr. cent. 

100 

1817— Apr. 7. — 4 pr. cent. 

1820— Apr. 24.— 1} " 

1823— May 9.--2J " 

1830— May i._ j « 

1834— Sept. 3.— J " 



Total, 



109 pr. cent 



It appears from the foregoing statement, that al- 
though the nominal amount of the capital has been 
refunded to the stockholders, and 9 per cent, be- 
sides, yet In point of fact, the read amount of the 
capital has not yet been repaid, if the interest ef 
money be estimated at 6 per cent per annum. This 
is proved by a statement of an interest account be- 
tween a stockholder and the bank. 

The Bank charter expired en the 4th of March, 
1611: In order therefore that a stockholder should 
have received yor for his stock, he should have re- 
ceived on that day, #100 cash, for every #100 of 
stock held by him. It will be perceived however, 
that no part of his capital was repaid to him until 
the 1st of June, 1812, near 15 months afterwards, 
by which delay be lost in interest upon every #100 
#7 44. 

His subsequent loss of interest upon the balance 
ef capital re m a in ing unreftmdedwas as follows: 



69 



36 




Upon #30 from June 1, 1812, 

to Oet 1, 1812,— 4 mos. 

Upon #12 from Oct 1, 1812, 

to April 1, 1813,-6 mot. 

Upon #5 from April 1, 1813, 

to April 3, 1815,-3 yrs- 



This statement, it will be observed does not take 
into consideration compound interest, which ought _ 
to be done to arrive at an exact result. It is suffi- 
cient for our purpose to show, that up to the 3d of 
April, 1815, each stockholder should have received 
#109 for every #100 of stock, in order to have 
been replaced upon the footing upon which he 
would on that day have stood, had he received his 
whole capital on the 4th of March, 1811. He did 
not, however, up to that period receive more than 
#100, and the protracted periods at which the dif- 
ferent instalments of the last #9 were paid, have 
rendered those instalments of less value than would 
have been a payment in hand of #7 on the 3d of 
April, 1815. We think it probable that a nice cal- 
culation of interest semi-annually compounded 
would show that the stockholders did not receive a 
sum more than equal to 97 per cent, paid on the 
day the charter expired. 

The Farmers* Register. — This deservedly popular 
work, edited by Edmckd Romir,Esq., and printed 
at Shellbanks, Prince George County, Virginia, ap- 
pears to us to increase in value as it grows older. 
The September No* contains eight well executed 
cuts of cattle of the finest breeds of Great Britain, 
with much information, that cannot fail to be inte- 
resting to all theoretical as well as practical farmers. 
We think that all lovers of agriculture, who can af- 
ford to expend five dollars per annum, in booka, 
should not be without the Register. 

Pennsylvania Polities.— We publish to-day the 
proceedings of M Tbe Democratic Delegation of 
the City and County of Philadelphia," held on the 
20th of August last, in order that our friends at a 
distance may lee the gradual advancement in Penn- 
sylvania of those principles of liberty which were 
once so dearly cherished in this state, and that they 
may be in possession of a history of the democratic 
party of Pennsylvania, with the causes of its deser- 
tion of those fundamental doctrines, upon which 
alone the union can be preserved. 

Medical Work.— " The Register and Library of 
Medical and Chirurgical science," edited by Dr. 
Granville Sharp Pattison, assisted by Dr. Jas. He* 
gan, and published by Duff Green, Esq. at Wash- 
ington, has reached the 39th number. It is publish- 
ed monthly, at #10 per annum, and is said to eon- 
tain as much matter of the best and newest works, 
as would cost #60. To Physicians residing at a die- 
tance from the seaports, it is an invaluable work. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



TO 



Political Alctaphj/iic*-- There is a faculty in the 
human mind, which renders it possible for a man to 
persuade himself that that is true which he wishes 
to be true. We see this often exemplified in the 
case of the weather. If a man is bent to start upon 
a jaunt of pleasure, on a cloudy dayv he can easily 
fancy it will not rain, although to every body else a 
shower appears to be certain. During the visit of 
the Cholera in 1832, 'thousands of sensible people 
fully satisfied themselves that it would not reach 
Philadelphia. Consumptive patients can easily con*. 
wince themselves that their chance of long life is as 
sreod as their neighbour's. A man can even per- 
suade himself that black is white, and that white is 
black, if be has a strong wish*. thai the fact should 
be so. This faculty is the source of nine-tenths of 
the misery existing in the world, for. it perverts the* 
rational or thinking principle, and forces it to diffe* 
rent conclusions from those at which it would arrive 
if left entirely to the guidance of truth. 

Any man who will examine the operations of bis 
own mind, will perceive that it possesses two dis- 
tinct faculties; the faculty of thinking, and the fa- 
culty of willing. The former, that is, the faculty of 
thinking is designed to be the instrument by which 
we are to reason respecting the affairs of life, to in- 
vestigate causes from their effects, and to follow out 
effects from their causes, in order that we may know 
how to choose between right and wrong, between 
good and evil, between happiness and misery, be- 
tween truth and falsehood. The latter, that is, the 
faculty of willing, is designed to be the means of 
enabling us to decide in the choice between the 
opposites just mentioned, and hence a man is said 
to be wise, who submitting to the dictates of the 
understanding,, chooses the good and the truth, and 
rejects the evil and the false. 

If all men were under the influence of the un- 
derstanding they would pretty generally come to 
the same conclusions, although there would necessa- 
rily be shades of difference between the different 
views of individuals arising from a higher or more 
limited degree of intelligence and illumination. A 
matter might be considered as white, or as more 
white, or as most white, but a white object could 
never appear to be black. The faculty, however, 
to which we first adverted, prevents this from- being 
the case. The will principle steps in, and arrogates 
to iteelf the right of dictating to the understand- 
ing, the precise mode in which it shall perform the 
process of thinking. It says, " you are not to be 
influenced by the mere light of truth, but you must 
compel yourself to make that appear to be true, 
which will favour my particular interests* Without 
the semblance of truth nothing can be sustained, 
and it is therefore essential to my success, and to 
what I conceive to be my happiness that you must 
make black appear to be white, and white appear 
to he black.' 9 
There is not a man who reads this, who cannot 



i look back to some actien^f his life, and bear testi* 
Imony tq the fact, that he has often seen his will 
J principle thus triumph over his understanding. If 
he be a politician, he must reeoHect-many instances 
wherein devotion to his party has demanded of bin 
to sustain measures which were at first condemned 
by his understanding as false, but were afterwards 
made to appear to it as true, by the prostitution of the 
thinking principle. There are no doubt many oasts 
in which politicians advocate what they are sure w 
wrongs and thus act in direct opposition te truth. 
But this seldom takes place, without first trying to 
bring over the understanding, so as to enable the 
will to sustain its positWn, by something like aega> 
ment. 

In order to illustrate more fully what we mean to 
establish, let us recur to some practical examples. 

A man's interest would be promoted by a protec- 
tive tariff, by enabling him to put his fingers into 
the pockets of another man, without bis knowing 
it, and taking something out of it without giving an 
equivalent. This interest operates immediately on 
the will, which calls upon the understanding for ar« 
guments to enable it to sustain it in its pretension?. 
The understanding begins to talk of political econo- 
my, of Adam Smith, of John fiaptiste Say, of Da- 
niel Webster, as he was in 1824, and tells the w*H 
very plainly, that what it is aiming at is downright 
robbery. Hereupon the will begins to coax the 
understanding, tells it what a comfortable thing it 
will be to have a splendid income derived from the 
mere turning of grind stones, and that it must read 
Mr. Clay's speeches, Niles' Register, Matthew Ca- 
rey's Essays, and Mr. Webster's Pittsburgh speech, 
before it can thoroughly understand the subject. 
The understanding consents. It begins to find out 
that two and two are not always four, that what it 
once called robbery, was only taking without leave, 
and that turning grind stones with nothing to grind 
on them is a veritable source of national wealth. 

Ambition plays off the same, game upon another; 
Prejudice upon a third; Revenge upon a fourth. But 
the most universal corrupter of the understanding 
is man-worship, by which we mean adhesion to per* 
sons in power, after they have abandoned the prin- 
ciples which alone brought them into power. Of 
the operations of this baneful passion we have had 
within the past year abundant examples. Thou- 
sands of men, professing to believe in the doctrines 
of 8tate Rights and a strict construction of the Cm* 
slitutioh, have been seen advocating the broadest 
principles of the old federal party, as put forth in 
the Proclamation of the 10th of December* 1833, 
and the Force Bill, and are attmevory moment sus- 
taining a measure, which has merged all the pow- 
ers of the federal government into one department. 
Would this be the case— could this he the case, if 
the understanding was allowed to decide for the 
will, and not the wiH fo* *»« understanding ? We 
apprehend not. It iothe mufc of a prostUutiea of 



80 



THE EXAMINER, Ac. 



the thinking faculty, to gratify the idolatrous pro* 
pensity of the will. 

President Jackson and President Santa Anna. — 
There is a wonderful propensity in military men, 
elected to civil stations, to introduce into tbeir ad- 
ministrations, the despotic and arbitrary spirit which 
belongs to the camp. The following article conveys 
information relative to the conduct of the President 
of Mexico, which so resembles that of Mr. Jackson, 
that one is almost tempted to think, that they have 
acted in concert. It seems, however, that the State 
of San Louis de Potosi, does not intend to be hum- 
bugged into consolidation, and has, therefore, adopt- 
ed the wise course of nullification. 

From the New Orleans Bee. 
FROM MEXICO. 

" We have just received a number of the Ataluya' 
Victoria, (Tamaulipas,) of June 17th. In it is to be 
found official information, which makes us fear, that 
New Spain is now being desolated by a civil war. — 
The following are extracts: 

To the Supreme Head of the Free State of San 
Louis de Potosi: Most excellent Seigneur — In the 
communication which the General Don Antonio Lo- 
pez de Santa Anna, sent on the 31st of May, to the 
Chambers of the Union, you will see that he has ex- 
ceeded his legal powers, and broken the Federal 
charter, in construing it, as he understands it. The 
Congress, in consequence of this, and before they 
had any knowledge of the conduct of Santa Anna in 
breaking up the national government, issued the fol- 
lowing decree, and also the proclamation which has 
been published. Never was there any occasion when 
we had more need of union and energy. Now is the 
time to resist this tyrant, who wishes to constitute 
himself supreme dictator. For this reason, we wish 
you to receive the enclosed, and communicate it to 
your Legislature. 

In the name of God and Liberty. > 
San Louis de Potosi, 9th June, 1834. $ 

The Constitutional Congress of the State, believ- 
ing— 

1st. That the President of the Republic, has not 
a right to construe the Federal Charter, as he under- 
stands it. 

2d. He has, in his communications of 31st May, 
the hardihood, wilfully to misconstrue the authority 
of the Chambers. 

3d. By these proceedings, he has passed the li- 
mits of his duties, and infringed upon the Federal 
Constitution. Therefore, this Congress does decree, 
that— 

1st. The State of 'San Louis, regards as illegal, 
all the public acts of the President, inasmuch as he 
will not submit to be bound by the Constitution and 
Laws* which recognize in the Chambers, the right 
of interpreting the articles of the Constitution, and 
of publishing such laws and decrees as they may 
think proper. 

3d. The Governor of this State, shall communi- 
cate this decree to the Legislatures of the other 
States, praying their assistance.-^The Executive 
Power of the State, will publish, circulate and exe- 
cute this decree, 

(Signed,) VINCENT UAMERO, 

MIGUEL LAZO, Major. 

San Louis de Potosi, 6th June, 1834, 



Quotations of the rate of Exchange,— During the 
time that $4 44 was by Act of Congress the equi- 
valent of one pound sterling, in the estimate of ad 
valorem duties at the custom house, that sum was 
taken in all mercantile calculations as the par of ex- 
change on England, and consequently when more 
than $4, 44 was asked for a bill for one pound ster- 
ling, exchange was said to be above par, and when 
less was asked, exchange was said to be below par. 
By the tariff act of 1832, $4 80 was declared to be 
the equivalent of one pound, in all reductions at the 
custom house of sterling money into currency, and 
consequently from that period $4 80 has been the par 
of exchange. So inveterate however, are the habits of 
merchants and brokers, that exchange still continues 
to be quoted in reference to the old par, so that al- 
though a bill on London can now be had for $4 7S, 
the pound sterling, which is below par, yet the quo- 
tation of the market is 7 per cent, above par. To 
many people, it may appear to be a matter of indif- 
ference which way the quotation is made, but the 
fact is not so. The quotation upon the old par is 
calculated to deceive the public as to the real course 
of trade, and to lead them to suppose that exchange 
is against the country, when it is in reality in its fa- 
vour. From this deceptive appearance arises the 
idea, that the balance of trade is against us, and 
more mischief arises from such an idea, than one is 
apt to suppose. The strongest argument employed 
by the champions of the American system, during* 
the days of their supremacy, was that of the balance 
of trade being against us, and it is the one to which 
they will immediately resort, when the protective 
doctrine again comes up for discussion. Should not 
therefore the merchants do all they can to break the 
most powerful weapon which their opponents can 
bring to bear upon them, by habituating themselves 
to quotations of Exchange on England, similar to 
those employed in reference to bills on Holland, or 
Hamburgh ? If however they must have the jargon 
of above par and below par, let them take the new 
par, of $4 80, as that sum corresponds with our pre- 
sent custom house valuation of the pound sterling. 

Persons wishing to subscribe for the second volume 
of the Examiner, which was commenced on the 6th 
of August, 1834, are informed that the bask num- 
bers of that volume will be furnished to all, who 
may apply before the first of November. To those 
who may apply after that date, they will be sup- 
plied, so long as any remain on hand of the edition 
printed. 



$1 50 
1 35 
1 00 



The price of this paper is per annum- 
For a single copy, , , 

Per 2 copies, $5, equal per copy to 
For 10 copies $10, equal per copy to 

Payabkin all case$ in advance 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL BGONOOT. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THB CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 

The Powers not Delegated to the United States, by toe CoasiitoUoa, nor prolitbited by it to the State*, are reserved to U» 

States respectively, or to toe People Amendments to the Constitution, Art, X. 

Ftoodom of Industry, aa sacred aa o**edom of speech or of the press. . Jofforson. 



Vol- II.] 



Wednesday, Ootober 15, 1834. 



[No. 6. 



AN EXPOSITION 
Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a series of 
Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distin- 
guished citizen of Virginia^ under the signature of 
••Locks/* in February, 1833. 

No. III. 
1 mm now to prove to you, sir, that Nullification 
is the only mode in which the usurpations of the 
Federal Government may be resisted by the States, 
in accordance arith the principles of our resolutions 
of 1798. Daring 1 as you may consider this enter- 
prise, I do not enter upon it with any fear, although 
1 approach without flourish of trumpets or any other 
parade. I am a plain, practical man* and desire to 
state my opinions in a manner which other plain, 
practical men will understand. If such men are not 
the ornaments of the country, they are at least its 
strength and support, and the very people to whose 
capacity all reasoning upon political subjects ought 
to be addressed. 

I beg you to bear in mind the principles which 
have already 1 been stated as deducible from the re- 
solutions of 1798. Perhaps our best course of pro- 
ceeding will be to state them in detail, and see whe- 
ther nullification does or does not conform to every 
one of them. 

1. The resolutions assert that there is some mode 
within the Constitution by which the usurpations of 
the Federal Government may be resisted by the 
States. Now, it is true that nullification is denied to 
be a constitutional remedy, but the nullifiers assert 
that it is constitutional; and I mention the point on- 
ly to show that they do not intend to assert any extra- 
constitutional or revolutionary remedy— and that so 
far, at least, they are within the resolutions of 1798. 
Whether their remedy is constitutional or not, sup- 
posing the principles of. the resolutions to be so, 
must depend on its conformity with those princi- 
ples in tne subsequent propositions/ We remark, 
therefore, that 

2. The remedy must be such as to " arrest the 
progress of the evil" — Now, be pleased to bear in 
mind* that nullification does not proceed upon any 
supposed right of the State to repeal a constitutional 
law, but upon the right of a State to declare that an 
unconstitutional law really is so, and to refuse obedi- 
ence to it for that reason. I beg you to bear this dis- 
tinction in mind. If nullification proposes any thing 
more or less than this, I am no nullifier, and do not 
understand the doctrine. Now, sir, is not this right 
of a State (to decide on the constitutionality of an 
act of Congress) distinctly asserted in the resolutions 



of 1798? Nay, has not Virginia asserted it in prac- 
tice, both in regard to the Alien and Sedition Laws, 
and in regard to these very Tariff Laws themselves? 
We all know that such is the fact. And was not 
resistance to such unconstitutional laws distinctly 
contemplated in the resolutions of 1798? I have 
already shown that it was; and if any farther proof 
is necessary, it will be found, in all abundance, in 
the address to the people which accompanied those 
resolutions. It appears, then, that the principles 
upon which nullification proceeds, are (in the ab- 
stract) in strict conformity with those of the resolu- 
tions of 1798. But those principles, it is admitted, 
must be limited and qualified by the object in view. 
We are, then, to inquire whether nullification does, 
or does not, " arrest the progress of the evil." The 
evil is the exercise of an usurped power: nullifies^ 
tion declares that the usurped power shall no longer 
be obeyed. Is not this the best of all possible 
modes, if not the only mode in which it can be "ar- 
rested?'* Perhaps it is not too great a refinement 
to say, that the M arrest*' here contemplated, is of 
the usurpation only, and not of the usurping power. 
In other words, H is not designed to put down the 
Federal Government — nor embarrass nor impede its 
legitimate operation; but simply to prevent it from 
exercising a power which does not belong to it.— 
Hence, no resort is contemplated in the resolutions 
of 1798 to any measures which may submit the ex- 
istence of that Government to the decision of arms. 
Its operations within the Constitution must all go on 
as before, whilst its operations beyond the Constitu- 
tion must be "arrested." Now, this is precisely 
and peculiarly the effect of nullification. Aik£ 
strange to tell, it is on this very ground that you and 
others have most strongly assailed that doctrine. You 
all say, that it is absurd to pretend that a 8tate can 
be in the Union and out of the Union at the same 
time; and that it is monstrous in a State to contend 
for all the advantages of the Union, as to certain 
laws, while she refuses to submit to the burthens im- 
posed by other laws. Nothing in nature can be more 
perfectly self-evident than all this. It is not surpris- 
ing that a man of General Jackson's measure of in- 
tellect and information should be deceived by such 
a superficial view of the subject: but we had a 
right to expect better things from a veteran in poli- 
tics, like yourself. Remember, sir, that a law be- 
yond the Constitution isno low at all, and there is no 
right any where to enforce it. A State which re- 
fuses to submit to such a pretended law, is striotly 
within the Union— because she is tn strict obedience 
to the Constitution; snd it is strange to say that she 



82 



THE EXAMINER, 



"* refuses to submit to the burthens" imposed by any 
uw which is hot law at all. Here, then, you 
have a picture of Nullification. It secures to the 
State the right to remain in the Union, and to enjoy 
all the advantages which the Constitution and laws 
can afford— submitting, at the same time, to all 
which that Constitution and laws rightfully enjoin; 
while it " arrests the progress" of usurped power, 
by destroying the obligation of every pretended law 
which the Constitution does not authorise, and 
which, therefore, is hot law. If this is not the 
meaning of the resolutions of 1798, I have much 
misunderstood them. It is precisely upon this point 
that the public mind of Virginia has been roost 
strangely misled by the authority of the President's 
name, and the speciousness of your paragraphs. — 
You owe the people a heavy debt of reparation, 
which 1 hope you will live to pay. 

This leads us to the second object of the resolu- 
tions of 1798, which is "to maintain within the lim- 
its of the respective States, the authorities, rights, 
-and liberties appertaining to them.'* I have already 
shown, in my second letter, that these authorities, 
rights, and liberties are not merely those which be- 
long to every sovereign State, and which may be en- 
joyed as well in a stale of separation as in league 
with others, but also all the authorities, rights, and 
liberties which the States are entitled to, under the 
Constitution, and as members of the Union. No State, 
therefore, can possibly effect this object of the re- 
solutions of 1798, by any proceeding which either 
withdraws her from the Union, or weakens her just 
influence in it. 

The remarks offered under the preceding head, 
apply with equal force and propriety to this. You 
and the President both say, that it is arrogance and 
presumption in a state to insist on retaining her place 
and influence in the Union, while she refuses to sub- 
mit to a part of its laws. Admitting, again, that this 
is perfectly true, but reasserting that it cannot ap- 
ply to the refusal of a State to submit to what is 
jtot law, I have to ask you how it is possible for a 
State to ''maintain her authorities, rights, and liber 
ties," except by the check which she may apply as 
a State, ana as a member of the United States, to the 
usurpations of the Federal Government, or by an 
appeal to arms? ' I pray you, sir, to enlighten my 
understanding upon this subject. If you cannot 
show me some other mode of proceeding, I take it 
for granted that no one else can. At all events, un- 
til it shall be done by some one or other, I shall be 
compelled to continue in my present heresy. If it 
was the meaning and object of the resolutions of 
1798, that the States had the right, and were in duty 
bound, to resist the usurpations of the Federal Go- 
vernment, by some means, which, at the same time 
that it arrested the evil, should preserve the Union un- 
broken, I must be permitted to think that Nullifica- 
tion, if it does not attain these objects completely, 
comes much nearer to it than any other proceeding 
which has yet been proposed. I know, sir, that 
you, and hundreds of others, have said that the re- 
solutions *f 1798 hive been misunderstood. Per- 
haps so. It is true their language has appeared to 
me, and to others like me, to be extremely plain— 
and it is our own construction of it alone which has 
formed our principles. Yet it is possible that it may 
hide some meaning deeper than we have been able 
to penetrate. I pray you to tell us what it is. Do 
not content yourself with the thbort only, but let 
us know the precise extent of our rights, and the 
precise modem which they may be constitutionally as- 
serted, according to the resolutions of 1798. 



It has not escaped my attention, that, according 
to those resolutions, the State interposition which 
they contemplate is not authorised, except in case* 
of " deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of 
powers not granted." It will be obvious, however, 
to intellects less clear than your own, that this does 
not affect, in any degree, the principle upon which 
State resistance is justified, nor even the mode in 
which it may be exerted. It merely points out the 
proper occasion for the application of the principle. 
And it will be sufficient here to remark, that accord- 
ing to your own theory, which in this respect agree* 
with the resolutions, each Stale is the exclusive judge 
for itself, whether the usurpation is deliberate, palpa- 
ble, and dangerous, or not. It follows, of course, that 
no objection to Nullification can be derived from 
this view of the subject. 

I have now, sir, to present to you a dilemma, con- 
nected with this part of our inquiries, and to ask 
you in what manner you propose to escape its horns? 
8outh Carolina says that an unconstitutional law is 
void, and so say the Virginia Resolutions— South 
Carolina says that each State has a right to decide 
for itself whether a law is constitutional or not, and 
so say the Virginia Resolutions — South Carolina, in 
the exercise of this right, has declared that the* Ta- 
riff Laws abx unconstitutional and so say the Virgi- 
nia Resolutions of 1828 and 1829 (I have forgotten 
the date) and so, Mr. Ritchie, sat you. How, then, 
can you countenance the President, in subjecting the 
citizens of South Carolina to the sword, for not sub- 
mitting to what you yourself beUeve to be a sheer usur- 
pation on the part of the Federal Government? Do, 
sir, in pity to our oppressed spirits, answer this ques- 
tion. You will not answer it, sir — because you caw- 
hot answer it without convicting yourself of incon- 
sistency. This I will prove — for I do not mean to 
allow you any refuge from this dilemma. South Ca- 
rolina is either right in her proceedings, (principles 
and all,) or else she is wrong. If she is right, then, 
there can be no pretence whatever for making war 
upon her: if she is waoxe, how does that fact ap- 
pear? It is admitted that the other States, co-par- 
ties with her to the Constitution have not said so. — 
Congress alone, and the President, or rather the 
Federal Government, has said it. Do you, sir, ac- 
knowledge any such right in the Federal Govern- 
ment? Is it not perfectly clear, that if such right 
exists, the Federal Government is an appellate tri- 
bunal, with power to decide, in the last resort, 
upon, the constitution alitt or its own acts? Of 
what avail is the right of a State to pronounce that 
an unconstitutional act of Congress is really so, if 
Congress may overrule that decision? Is not this, 
sir, the very essence of that consolidation against 
which the Virginia Resolutions, Madison's Report, 
and your own valuable labours, have so long con- 
tended? It is impossible, then, for you to justify 
Congress and the President, except by asserting, 
either that Congress may overrule the decision of 
South Carolina, upon a question touching their own 
powers, and, by the same rule, may overrule the 
decision of every other State, and thus become the 
sole judges of the extent of their own powers; or by 
asserting that they may constitutionally enforce an 
unconstitutional law. Can you, sir, escape this dif- 
ficulty, without abandoning every principle for 
which you have professed to contend for thirty 
years? I am exceedingly anxious to know in what 
manner you will do it For myself, > can discover 
but one possible loop-hole of retreat, and even that 
I will endeavour to close upon you.— I reseive this, 
however, for a succeeding letter. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



83 



From the Commercial Intelligencer, 
POLITICS FOR PJLAIN DEMOCRATS. 

LSCOKSIBTXHCX OF PRK8IDXXT JA.CKS02C. 

It is not our purpose to speak uncharitably of the 
aged man who presides over the republic. The 
writer is himself a ° Jackson mam" and though con- 
attained to oppose the dreadful abuses of the ad- 
ministration, will not deny bis real merits, nor at- 
tempt to diminish any claims he may have upon the 
affections of the people. He addresses himself 
particularly to those who have voted for Jackson. 
They cannot vote fur him again, and there is, or 
ought to be, no feeling to dissuade them from the 
stern and patriotic task of probing the wounds of 
the republic Where we can be silent we will; but 
when censure is merited, we will remember that 
we owe to our country a duty more solemn and sa- 
cred than any which can be due lo an individual. 

One great source of existing evils is the absence 
of all confidence in the administration. Many cau- 
ses have combined to produce this result. The 
first and greatest is the violation, by the administra- 
tion, of every pledge and every principle on which 
it was elected. 

The administration now presiding over the coun- 
try, is not the one elevated by the people, its prin- 
ciples are not those which they sustaineoV-and its 
members were not, and never were honored with 
their confidence. 

It may be remembered that Jackson it the only 
candidate who ever descended to win support by 
giving pledges and making promises, and the only 
one whose pledges and promises were violated. 

We will proceed to designate what those pro* 
raises were, and how they were violated. 

Among other virtuous positions assumed by him 
previous to the election, was a decided opposition 
to every thing calculated to increase the dangerous 
power of the executive. For this purpose he was 
favourable to surrounding the President with every 
check, to lessen his patronage, and even to confine 
him to a term of four years. In his first message 
he recommended a change of the Constitution by 
which the presidential term would be thus altered. 
— Yet he franked a letter to a Pennsylvania Sena- 
tor, desiring him to procure a second nomination; 
he effected his object; he hastened into the field 
and, by dint of ardent electioneering, was elected. 

In the celebrated letter of General Jackson to the 
Tennessee Legislature, written before his election, 
and teeming with pledges, all of which have been 
violated; he said "If important appointments con- 
tinue to devolve upon the Representatives in Con- 
gress, it requires no depth of thought to be con- 
vinced that corruption will become the order of the day,-' 
and that under the garb of conscientious sacrifices 
to establish precedents for the public good, evils 
of serious importance to the freedom and prosperity 
of the republic may arise. It is through this chan- 
nel that the people may expect to be attacked in their 
constitutional sovereignty, and where tyranny may 
be apprehended to spring up in some favourable 
emergency." 

Yet since Jackson's election, more appointments 
have been made from the two Houses of Congress 
than too"k place under all the other Presidents since 
the formation of the Constitution. Fifteen have 
been appointed from the Senate and twenty-six 
from the House, snaking a total of forty-one! 

One of the prominent principles recognized and 
urged in the election of Jackson was official reform. 
The people were determined to secure the purity 
of the elective franchise from the dangers of official 
interference. Jackson stood before them pledged 



to sustain that reform, and in his inaugural address, 
thus solemnly repeated the obligation: — "Conspicu- 
ous among the objects of reform will be my efforts to 
prevent the patronage of the General Government be' 
ing brought to bear on popular sentiment in reference 
to political questions." 

Yet since his election the number of national offi- 
cers have been increased to an enormous army of 
forty thousand men, generally chosen from among 
the most violent partisans; and instead of being 
"prevented from bringing the patronage of the Gen- 
eral Government to bear on popular sentiment," 
they are encouraged so to do, by every species of 
corruption, and punished for political inactivity by 
proscription and dismissal. Never were the office- 
holders of any government so active as ours now 
are. They, indeed, form the leaders and active mem- 
bers of the administration party, and not only en- 
gross the political power of the country, but use it 
for the most corrupt purposes, and in the most ruin- 
ous manner. 

We will defer to future numbers an exposition of 
his flagrant departure from the principles on which 
he was elected by his violation of State rights in the 
Proclamation andTorce Bill; by hjs derilcction from 
a strict construction of the constitution in the pro- 
test and other acts and documents; by his forgetful' 
ness of the jealousy with which the executive should 
be regarded, as exhibited in every act of his admin- 
istration. 

So incessantly variable and widely inconsistent 
have been the acts, opinions and principles of Gen. 
Jackson, at different times, that it is impossible for 
sny roan, whatever his party or principles, to sus- 
tain him consistently, or with confidence. 

Is he a democrat? Jackson has not only violated 
every principle of democracy, but has dismissed 
every democrat in his cabinet to make room for ac- 
knowledged and ardent federalists. 

Is he a federalist? Jackson has denounced them 
with a bitterness almost unequalled, and was favor- 
able to hanging them during the last war. 

Is he a nullifier? Jackson has* in his proclama- 
tion, avowed the broadest doctrines of the rankest 
school of consolidation. 

Is he a consolidationist? Jackson has, in explicit 
terms, approved the wildest doctrines of Nullifica- 
tion, as expounded by Havne and Hamilton. 

Is he an anti-Bank man? Jackson has admitted 
the constitutionality and expediency of a Bank, and 
is now doing all in hia power to erect the moat cor- 
rupt banking system under heaven, by means of 
numberless subsidized state banks- 
Is he favourable to a Bank? Jackson has shaken 
the Government to its foundation, violated the con- 
stitution, and impoverished the people, in opposing 
the Bank, and now swears that no bank shall be 
incorporated. 

Is he favourable to Internal Improvements by the 
National Government? Jackson has vetoed several 
bills on the express -ground of opposition to the 
principle. 

Is he opposed to Internal Improvements? Jack- 
son has also signed a number of bills recognizing 
the doctrine in its fullest sense. 

Is he favourable to a division of "the spoils? 
Jackson haS condemned it in the roost indignant 
terms. *• , . 

Is he opposed to it? Jackson has practised it an 
hundred fold more than any of his predecessors. 

Is lie favourable to the appointment of Congress- 
men? Jackson stands pledged before heaven and 

^he^atoit? '^ftESSr*'"* 
is practising it to an unprecedented extent. 



84 



THE EXAMINER, 



Is he for the Tariff? Jackson has been its bitter- 1 
est and wont foe. 

Is he against the Tariff? Jackson has been its 
open champion. 

Is be favourable to presidential eligibility for two 
terms? Jackson pledged himself to serye but one. 

Is he favourable to tbat limitation? Jackson has 
served two terms, and b understood to be anxious 
for a third. 

Is he favourable to party distinctions? Jackson 
has denounced party as "a monster," and advised 
Munroe to prostrate it. 

Is he opposed to parties? Jackson sacrifies the 
freedom and welfare of the country, to sustain party 
distinctions. 

He has been every thing in turns. At this mo- 
ment it is impossible to tell what are the principles 
of the administration, or to satisfy ourselves that it 
has any. It is consistent only in its arbitrary despo- 
tism, its avarice of power, its recklessness, folly, 
and corruption. 

ADDRESS 
Of the State Right* Association of Buck* County? 

Pennsylvania, 
A meeting of the State Rights Association of the 
County of Bucks, was held at Ooylestown on Satur- 
day the 20th day of September, 1834, pursuant to 
public notice. 

John Pugb, Esq., president of the Association, in 
the chair. 

After an interesting and able address from the 
Hon. S. D. Ingham, the following resolutions were 
unanimously adopted. 

Resolved, That this society, will, at stated meet- 
ings, to be held for that purpose, entertain discus- 
sions in writing and orally, upon the nature and ob- 
jects of civil government; the origin and character 
of the American republics, and of their federative 
system; upon the eh meter of the acts of Congress 
and of the 8tate Legislatures which may be deemed 
repugnant to the Constitutional authority of those 
bodies^ also all laws supposed to be derogatory to 
the great principles of Civil Liberty-- and all other 
matters wherein the rights and happiness of man may 
be affected through the political institutions or the 
administration of civil government. 

Rcsohed, That a Committee be appointed to pre- 
pare an address to the public explanatory of the 
object and intended proceedings of this society. 

The ^ Chan-man appointed the following named 
persons, viz:— S. D. Ingham, Andrew Heller, 
Judge John Fox, Lewis S. Coryell, Samuel Kinsey, 
Samuel Sutton and J. H. Purdy, a Committee to per- 
form the duty contemplated by the second resolu- 
tion; who reported the following: 

Address of the State Rights J&ssodatim of Bucks' 
County to their Fellow Citizens, 
Fiixow CiTinws:— A review of political events 
in the United States since the declaration of inde* 
pence, and of the diversified theories of the illus- 
trious men, who under the blessings of God estab- 
lished tbat independence, and perfected the forms 
of government which constitute our republican sys- 
tem, has led those who compose this 'society to the 
conclusion, that it is highly important to Hie future 
destinies of the American Republic, that the popu- 
lar mind should be well acquainted, not only witb 
the leading and fundamental principles of the sys- 
tem, but with the nature of its operation, and the 
political tendency of the varied action to which it 
is liable. There is no axiom more true than "that 
the possession of power oreates a thirst for its ac- 
cumulation;" to this cause nay be ascribed all the 



contrivances, whether o( fraud or force, or the ex- 
citement of improper passions, to subject the inte- 
rests of the many to the control of the few, snd the 
consequent subversion of the great design for which 
governments were instituted, viz. "the happiness 
of the human race." It is a strong evidence of ap- 
proaching degeneracy when a people presume to 
be much wiser, and better than all those who have 
gone before them; as well as of great weakness* to 
suppose, that the infirmities, the passions and 
the vices, which have marked the footsteps of man 
from the earliest ages, do not belong to the human 
character of their own day. The love of money 
and the love of power, are the great ruling passions 
which by the contrivance of what is called govern- 
ment, have sacrificed the happiness and liberty of 
the greatest portion of the human family. That the 
people of the United States have so long enjoyed 
these blessings, is probably owing to the virtue and 
wisdom of those Anglo Saxon Progenitors, who as 
a substitute for customs which had often been vio- 
lated, devised the plsn of a written chart for the se- 
curity of their liberty. Experience had taught them 
that without some controlling guide of this nature, 
the successive struggles between prerogative and 
privilege mast end as they always had done, either 
in the more firm establishment of an existing tyrea- - 
ny, or of some other under a new name. Thus the 
reckless abuses and cruelties of Charles the first, - 
when no longer supportable, led to a revolution for 
freedom, which resulted in the elevation of the ty- 
rant Cromwell, with absolute power concentrated 
in himself. The adoption of a bill ot rights which 
limited the royal prerogative, and established the 
independence of the other depsrtments of Govern- 
ment, was a new era in the progress of civil liberty* 
However vague and undefined in the distribution of 
its powtrs, that paper gave a visible form to certain 
great principles of government, of which the Colo*, 
nial Charter, and subsequently our state constitu- 
tions are emanations carried out with all the guards 
deemed necessary for the better protection of the 
property and personal rights of the citizens. Our 
Federal Government was created by the states for 
certain general objects, and that the rights of the 
ststes and liberties of the people should be forever 
shielded from its encroachments, the powers grant- 
ed were specially defined and limited, while all 
other powers were reserved. But these limitations 
and reservations, will be little security for those 
rights and liberties, unless the strict letter of the 
grant be made the rule of action, or if those en* 
trusted with powers are allowed to be the sole 
judges of their extent However well these grants 
may be defined, it is easy for ambition or avarice to 
discover in the phraseology of any instrument, 
some pretext for a construction that will gratify an 
excited paasion, or prevailing interest, and if there 
were no barriers to usurpation except in the moral 
sense of those who may be tempted, our liberties 
would be little safer than were* those of the people 
of England under Charles or Cromwell. 

The wise and patriotic men who framed the Fe- 
deral Government, perfectly understood the nature 
of their work, and anticipated the dangers which 
threatened. They provided various departments, 
prescribed to each its appropriate functions, so di- 
versified their organization as to secure the inde- 
pendent action of each, *e to form efficient checks 
sgainst the concentration of power, and at the same 
time so wisely blended their mutual relations, as to 
insure harmony in the operation of the system; but 
with all these perfections, errors have crept into 
our government, both of doctrines and practice, 
and U is greatly to be feared that without some ?o 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



85 



lunuury effort out of the usual way, many of Hs 
blessings will be lost, if not the whole fabric en* 
dangered. All agree that the people hold the so- 
vereign power of govern me nt in their hands, but 
this can avail them little, while they neglect to in- 
form themselves as to the true interpretation of the 
instrument which contains the grant of delegated 
power, and to exercise an intelligent control over 
their agents in the administration of the govern- 
ment according to the true meaning of the consti- 
tution. Impressed with these truths, this associa- 
tion propose* to cultivate and disseminate, an inti- 
mate and thorough acquaintance with the princi- 
ples of the American government, particularly 
those provisions of the federal and state constitu- 
tions which involve the power and rights of the 
etates, and generally whatever in the political rela- 
tions of man, may seem to effect his liberty, duty 
sued happiness. Posaessed of this knowledge, each 
citizen who has the right of suffrage goes to the 
Pott armed with a perfect defence against every 
art which may be attempted, to impose on his un- 
derstanding. Having the capacity, as well as the 
right, to judge of the acts of his representatives, he 
may scrutinize their conduct and their principles. 
He will have the test always at hand, for trying both 
practice and doctrine, and relying upon an honest 
enlightened understanding, will require no aid from 
any man, or combinations of men, to direct his 
vote; nor can he be seduced from his faith, by high 
sounding professions or imposing names. 

A people thus informed can never be enslaved. 
Those who understand their rights best, will al- 
ways set the highest value on them, and will not 
fail to resist the first step in abuse; or the exertion 
of unlawful power. It is believed that while the 
objects of this association will be deemed worthy 
of popular regard, its meetings will be found inte- 
resting, as well to those who may be disposed to 
impart* as those who desire to receive instruction, 
through its deliberations and discussions. These 
will of course embrace a scrutiny into the origin of 
Che formation of the American republics, and their 
federative system, their character and tendency in 
the advancement of practical liberty and human 
happiness; an investigation of the true meaning of 
the various clauses of the federal and state consti- 
tutional an examination of such acts of the general 
and state governments, as may have been deemed 
pernicious to the public interest, injurious to civil 
liberty, or repugnant to the constitution. A consi- 
deration of the means which may be rightfully em* 
ployed, for preventing and resisting corruption, 
abuses or usurpations of power; of die relation of 
the representative to the constituent and the nature 
of party association, and its obligations upon the 
judgment of freemen. Other topics of the same 
character, and of deep interest; will of course be 
introduced. These discussions it is believed, will 
not on^y prove beneficial in familiarizing the mind 
Co subjects of the greatest moment which are now 
virtually neglected, but in improving the capacity, 
especially ofthe younger class of men, for close in- 
vestigation and sound reasoning, for composition 
and extempore speaking. These qualities are the 
armour of the statesman, and when generally im- 
proved, in such a country aa ours, and guided by 
the voice and countenance of an enlightened and 
virtuou* people, fiberty may be assured of cham- 
pions whom bo machinations can circumvent, or 
combination of force subdue. It wiU be perceived 
that such an association can have no exclusive iden- 
tity with Any party combinations, either to acquire 
or preserve power. These are so much confound- 
#4, as to be no longer a designation of principle; 



besides the same name may be given to different 
things, and the most venerable names may be as- 
sumed, as a cover for the most unworthy designs. 
To avoid all responsibility for abuses of this nature, 
heretofore practised, and avert them as much as 
possible, from its own character and future con- 
duct, this association desires to be recognized only 
by the principles it professes and practises upon; no 
departure from these, can be mantled by any name 
whatever. The plan proposed for its deliberations, 
and discussions will familiarize each member with 
these principles, which will constitute not only the 
guide and way mark, for his own actions, but the 
touch-stone by which to try those of others. In the 
belief that much benefit may result from societies, 
thus constituted; and that none can justly impute 
or apprehend evil, the association submit their plan, 
and confidently anticipate a favorable consideration 
of it, from a sufficient portion of their fellow citi- 
zens to make it respect able, and highly useful. Let 
no one be discouraged from joining this society 
through an apprehension that the topics for discus- 
sion, are beyond his reach. It has been the policy 
of those who seek to use government, as an instru- 
ment, to enrich the few at the expense of the 
many; to mystify the science of it, and inculcate the 
belief that none but the learned, or those having 
what is called, learned professions, (though without 
learning to adorn them) are competent to under- 
stand this pretended mystery. Unfortunately the 
unlearned too readily yield to this delusion and be* 
come the instruments in the hands of deceivers, to 
be used for their own debasement. It is by reflec- 
tion, investigation, and discussion, that man is ena- 
bled to acquire knowledge, and by the proper use 
of these means, many subjects which at a distance 
seemed abstruse, will soon become familiar and com- 
prehensible, to the plainest understanding. It can- 
not require much learning to teach a freeman, that 
he has a right to be protected in the enjoyment of 
hisiiberty, and his property. That no person, be 
his power what it may, can rightfully touch either, 
except by authority of law. That he has s perfect 
right to be redressed for every wrong that may be 
inflicted upon him. That when he pays taxes for 
support of government, the money ought to be 
honestly expended and duly accounted for; not 
wasted upon idle drones, or given as rewards for 
corruption, and wickedness — nor will it require 
much learning to understand that all those who re- 
ceive public money without service, are interested 
in keeping up the abuses by which they live; that 
all men love power, and moneys and sometimes use 
both dishonestly and wickedly as the means of get- 
ting more; and therefore, that it is useful to watch 
those who are entrusted with s control over the pub- 
lic treasury; to take care that no laws are passed 
which expend that fond either for useless or impro- 
per objects. To understand the disease is the first 
step in the cure— the remedy is often' difficult, be- 
cause those who live upon the public, wHl never 
give up aa long as they can avoid it, their chance of 
plunder; and will contrive a thousand schemes to 
deceive the people, and divert their attention from 
these abuses. Hence the necessity of a careful ex- 
amination, of all those provisions of the constitution 
and of the laws, which are construed to favor abuses 
of every kind, and also of all those remedies tor 
evils of this nature which are most suitable and ei- 
fective. Hence the necessity too, of watching eve- 
ry movement of those in power, which is of a suspi. 
clous character, that the growth and habit of abuse, 
and the power it gives may be stopped in the germ 
of its existence. . ^ , 

Having thus fully illustrated the character as** 



86 



I 



THE EXAMINER, 



purpose of this association, it remains to invite the 
co-operation of all who can adopt its faith and be- 
come persuaded of its beneficial tendency. 

Resolved, That the address signed with the names 
of the officers of the association be published in the 
County papers. 

JOHN PUGH, President. 
Andrew Hkllbr, > y . p 
Jonathan Delant, > v,ce rre8 ' 

Jacob At. Cullender, I Q _ ... . 

Jacob R. Hibbs, 5 C y *' 

The Committee of Correspondence consists of 
John Fox, John Davis, Simpson Torbert, Samuel D. 
Ingham, Thomas Purly, Lewis F. Hart, Wm. T. 
Rogers. 

From the Columbia (S. C.) Times and Gazette of 

Spt. 19. 

THE FEDEUAL GOVERNMENT. 

Mr. Editor — I propose in this and my next num- 
ber, to examine the oft disputed point, whether our 
United States Constitution, is the accepted work of 
one aggregated, undivided people, inhabiting the 
territory called the United States — or, whether it be 
a Constitution ratified and adopted by the uncon- 
nected Conventions of the people of each distinct 
and separate State; each Convention speaking for 
the people of that State, and for no other. 

The bpoks that a constitutional lawyer ought to 
consult on this occasion, arc, 

1st. The Journals, Acts, and Proceedings of the 
Convention of 1787. Boston 1819. 

2. Secret Debates and proceedings of the Con- 
vention, by Robert Yates and Luther Martin, Esqs. 
Albany, 1824. 

3. Construction construed by Col. John Taylor of 
Caroline. Richmond 1820. 

4. New Views of the Constitution, by the same. 
Washington City, 1823. 

5. Consolidation, or a history of Parties in the U. 
States, by Dr. Thomas Cooper, Columbia, South 
Carolina; 3d edition. 

6. The Crisis, by Brutus, (Robert J. Turnbull,) 
Charleston, 1827. 

7. Reports of Doctor Ramsay to the Legislature 
of S. Carolina, Dec. 3, 1827. 

8. Debate between the Hon. Daniel Webster and 
Col. Hayne, in the Senate, on Foot's resolutions re- 
lating to the Public Lands, Jan. 1830. 

9. The summary of States Rights, arguments, by 
Condy Raguet in Vis Examiner, vol. 2, No. 1. The 
case of M'Culloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheaton's Re- 
ports; and the well known book, called the ''Fede- 
ralist," by Hamilton; Madison, and Jay, I take for 
granted every lawyer will possess. 

Judge Story's recent Commentaries on Constitu- 
tional Law, in which the National Consolidated doc- 
trines of the North, are defended much at length, are 
in 3 volumes 8vo; an abridgement of them by the 
learned author, in one large 8vo volume, (736 

Sages) and an Elementary Constitutional Class 
ook, in a smaller 8vo volume, have also lately 
been published by this indefatigable expositor of 
Northern construction. Mr. Suluvan, of Massachu- 
setts, and Mr. Bayard, of Philadelphia, have also 
published elementary treatises, in confirmation of 
the positions taken by the Northern jurists gene- 
rally. Mr. Duponceau's book on Constitutional 
I^aw, has not yet appeared here. The National, 
consolidated character of our government under 
the present Constitution, is elaborately argued in 
the 8vo. abridgement of Judge Story's Comment- 
aries, (Boston 1833) from page 116 to page 194.— 



The question did not occupy much of the public 
attention when Mr. Sergeant, and Mr. Rawle of 
Philadelphia, published their treatises on Constitu- 
tional Law. The case of M'Cnlloch against Mary- 
land, 1819, seems to be the starting point of the 
modern discussions* 

I proceed now to argue this question on the Fe- 
deral, or Anti-National view of it. For during the 
discussions on the Constitution, from 1787 to 1790, 
the Democratic Republicans were Federalists— the 
modern party now called federalists, were then as 
now, nationalists or anti-federals. The Tory party 
adopted tbe appellation of Federalists, soon after 
the book of that name appeared. 

First, from the history of the States, now united, 
until the meeting of the Convention in 1787. 

On the 4th July, 1776, the several Colonies hav- 
ing met by their delegates in Congress, declared, 
that "they are, and of right ought to be, free and 
independent States." 

They met again in April and November, 1777, to 
form articles of Confederation. On the first of 
March, 1781, the articles of the old confederation, 
proposed on July 8, 1778, were finally ratified.— 
That i his was not a National but a Federal Govern- 
ment — originating in a mutual compact between 
the States who acceeded to it, will not be denied. 
Art 1, says, the style of this Confederacy, shall be 
the United States of America. The same at pre- 
sent used. The phrase United States, therefore, 
implies a federal compact of independent States. 

By art. 2, each State retains its sovereignty, free- 
dom and independence. 

By art. 4, the people are designated, as the peo- 
ple of the different States in the Union. 

In the treaty of peace with Great Britain, 20th 
of January, 1783, the King of England acknow- 
ledged the liberty, sovereignty, and independence 
of the Thirteen United States; naming them sepe- 
rately. 

On the 21st Feb, 1787, a resolution was moved 
and carried in Congress, recommending a Conven- 
tion to meet in Philadelphia in May next, to revise 
the articles of Confederation, and ««report to Con- 
gress and the several Legislatures, such alter ations 
and provisions as shall when agreed to in Congress, 
and confirmed by the States, render the Federal 
Constitution adequate to the exigencies of Govern- 
ment, and the preservation of the Union* 9 1 have 
italicised the words I shall refer to. Let us see how 
far we have journeyed. 

Hitherto, we find no notice but of separate, so- 
vereign, independent States. 

We find the terms Congress, Union, Federal, 
Confederation in common use. All of them ^ exclu- 
sively appropriated to distinct States or Nations.— 
Congress for instance: what was the Congress of 
Vienna? and every proceeding European Con- 
gress? 

Federal: can there be a federal compact, a Con- 
federation of individuals? Was the term ever to 
applied, or mis-applied? 

Union: is not this a word appropriated to States, 
and not to individuals? The Union of the Hanse 
towns; of the 8wiss Confederacy; of the United pro- 
vinces, Sea? Show, if you can, the application of 
this word to individuals, in a political sense. 

When these States therefore met by their dele- 
gates as States in Convention, at Philadelphia, 
they were undoubtedly separate, and sovereign 
States. When and where have thty resigned thst 
character? 

Secondly, 1 argot from the history of the Convcn- 

nu 

Twelve States appointed delegates to the Con- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



87 



Tention at Philadelphia, in May, 1787: New Hamp- 
shire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New 
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virgi- 
ilia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. 
In every one of the powers delegated, the term* 
federal government, or federal constitution, and 
union, are used; in not one of them, is the term 
national employed, or any expression synonimous. 
When they met, they verified their powers as de- 
legates of separate and independent States; and 
throughout their proceedings they voted, not as 
representatives of the people but of the States.— 
The vote of the State of Delaware, counted equal- 
ly with that of Virginia or New York. 

On the 29th May, 1787, the Convention being or- 
ganized, Mr. Randolph of Virginia, offered 15reso. 
hitions, proposing a national government, a nation- 
al executive, a national legislature, a national ju- 
diciary, a national council of revision, with power 
of rejecting all Laws passed by State Legislatures 
contravening the articles of Union. In these reso- 
lutions the word Congress is not employed, save 
in reference to the confederation of 1777, 1778, and 
1781, shewing that this term was considered as 
applicable to a federal and not a national govern- 
ment. May 30, Mr. Randolph moved, "that an 
Wmitn of States merely federal, will not accomplish 
the objects proposed by the articles of confedera- 
tion.*' It was then moved by tor. Butler, and se- 
. eoaded by Mr. Randolph, « % that a national govern- 
ment ought to be established, consisting of a su- 
preme, legislative, judiciary, and executive." This 
was met by a counter resolution, excluding the 
words national, and supreme. Here then, the pre- 
cise question which is now at issue between the 
North and the South, was proposed and debated in 
the convention* Mr. Randolph and Mr. Butler 
gained the victory; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, 
Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina and South Ca- 
rolina, voting in their favour; Connecticut against 
them, and New York was divided. So that six out 
of eight States, voted for annihilating the indepen- 
dence of the thirteen States that then constituted 
he Union! 

The contest continued on <£is question of a na- 
tional or consolidated government, until the 25th of 
June, when it was moved to strike out the word 
national, and • substitute United Slate*-, that is, to 
substitute a term of compact and federation, in- 
stead of consolidation. The democratic party had 
now gained the ascendancy, and the resolution was 
carried, as I have already slated. A feeble attempt 
was made on the 24th of August to revive the hopes 
of the consolidationists, by a motion to strike out 
the word legislature, and substitute the word people 
in the 1st section of the 10th art. of the reported 
constitution, as to the election of President, which 
was negatived nine States to two. 

Observe. While the consolidationists had the 
majority of State votes, on June 13th, it was moved 
by Mr. Randolph and seconded by Mr. Madison, 
that "the jurisdiction of the national judiciary % shall 
extend to questions of revenue, impeachment of 
national officers, and questions which involve the 
national peace and harmony. This passed in the af- 
firmative on that day. It is the very power now 
claimed for the Supreme court, by the consolida- 
tionists and northern jurists. Bnt on the final pas- 
sage of the constitution, it was rejected; the power 
of deciding questions of revenue was conceded, the 
other two branches of Mr. Randolph's motion were 
rejected, for the constitution as passed, does not 
.contain them. 

Let us stop for a moment Is not here, sufficient 
and conclusive evidence, that the convention did 



positively reject a national Government, with su- 
preme power over the States? and that after fre- 
quent debate? 

Is not here sufficient and conclusive evidence, 
that the convention refused to give to the judiciary, 
the power of deciding questions, in which the na- 
tional peace and harmony were involved?- 

Is not this sufficient and conclusive evidence, that 
the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court is confined 
to caseB of law and equity merely, and that all politi- 
cal questions are excluded? Chief Justice Marshall, 
as we all know, has expressed the same opinion, be- ^ 
fore he was appointed to the bench, and before he 
had any temptation to change it. 

Let us proceed. If this be a Constitution of the , 
whole people, inhabiting the territory of the United 
States, then the ratification ought to have been 
made by a majority of nine-thirteenths of the whole 
people. The Northern jurists put the question dis- 
tinctly upon this ground, by what authority was the 
Constitution ratified? Here they join issue with the 
South, and they aver that the Constitution was rati- 
fied not by the 8tates, but by the individual people. 
Judge Story also, puts it upon this point: the North 
American Review does so likewise; for they urge 
that the preamble declares, 

1st. "We, the people of the United States, do 
ordain and establish this Constitution." 

2d. The ratification wss referred not to the states, 
but to the people of the States. 

To which I reply: that the United States; is a fe- 
deral expression; denoting a federal compact. It 
is the same as the States, united. The term is tech 
nical in our constitutional history, for it was adopted 
by the old confederation in 1777, 1778, and ^1781. 
Art 1, of that Confederation delegates legislative 
power to a Congress of the United States. The peo- 
ple of the United States, therefore, are not the peo- 
ple of one undivided territory, but of the various 
States or Nations who agreed to unite together: the 
United Slates. I reply secondly, that it is an ab- 
surdity absolutely outrageous, to suppose, that a 
measure so important as a renunciation and annihi- 
lation of State Sovereignty and independence, 
should take place without some precise indisputable 
evidence of it — some clear, distinct cession, in words 
and phrases that admit of no dispute. There is none 
such to be found. Up to this time, we hear of no- 
thing but States, distinct and independent; united 
by mutual compact, for a common purpose of de- v 
legated agency. There is no proof of the existence 
of such a body as the people, distinct from the peo- 
ple of each seperate State. Shew me if you can, 
where is the consent to merge State sovereignty, 
and independence, to be found in the Constitution? 
No where. To assert it, is to convert a fiction, into 
a fact. To infer the annihilation of State sovereign- 
ty from the expression "we the people of the Unit- 
ed States, " and by this vague implication to blot 
out of the catalogue of nations, 24 independent 
communities, and degrade them into municipalities, 
is a specimen of logical legerdemain, to which the 
assumptions and absurdities of ancient and modern 
metaphysics, can exhihit no parallel. 

As to the ratification by the People 1 replyv 

That the reason of referring the ratification to 
Conventions of the people, was because no legis- 
lature, itself a creature of a Constitution, could ar- 
rogate the power of deciding on a Constitution. A 
constitution is an act of sovereignty, to be exercis- 
ed by the people in Convention, and by them 
alone. 

The Constitution of the United States, when was 
it to be in force — when ratified by a majority of 
the whole people of the United States? Not but 



68 



THE EXAMINER, 



when ratified by nine States: and it was not to be 
binding on the States who did not accede tQ it. 

It was referred to a Convention of Che people of 
each independent State, not to the whole people; it 
was referred not to the individuals of each State, but 
to a Convention of the people of each State; a well 
known political body, of ascertained and acknowl- 
edged authority. A convention is no more a col- 
lection of mere individuals, than a legislature, or a 
bench of Judges, or a bench of bishops; they are 
individuals indeed, but individuals convened in a 
known political capacity, and acting in that capacity. 
His painful to be called on to dwell on these very 
plain, well known matter of fact truths* nothing but 
the jaundiced eye of prejudice and theory, could 
view them in any other light. 

Let us look at the population of that day, (Gondy 
Raguet's Brief History.) Delaware had 59,094 in- 
habitants; New York 358,079. Yet the vote of De- 
laware, both as a member of the Convention and as 
a ratifying State, counted the same as that of New 
York. The seven smaller States had a population 
of 1,192,353; the six larger States of 2,729,073; yet 
the seven smaller could outvote the six larger, whe- 
ther on the vote in Convention or on the ratification. 
Where is it provided that the majority in number of 
people amon? the less numerous States, shall out- 
vote the smaller number of people in the greater 
number of States? No where. 

Under the Census of 1820, the whole population 
of the twenty-four United States, was 9,637,999, of 
which the six States New York, Pennsylvania, Vir- 
ginia, North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, possessed 
5,272,207. If the Constitution was ratified as the 
act of the individual voters of the United States, and 
not as the act of independent States, united for the 
purposes in that Constitution mentioned, then ought 
the Senatorial votes to accompany the preponder- 
ance of population; who ever pretended that it 
ought? 

The papers called the Federalist, are citeable as 
\ authority in the Supreme Court of the U. States* 
what do they say? 

In No. 39, by Mr. Madison, "It appears that the 
Constitution is founded on the assent and ratification 
of the people- of America, given by deputies ap- 
, pointed for the very purpose; but this assent and ra- 
tification is given by the people, not as individuals, 
composing one entire nation* but as composing the 
distinct and independent States, to which they re- 
spectively belongs it is to be the assent and ratifica- 
tion of the several States, derived from the supreme 
authority in each State, the authority of the people 
themselves. The act therefore, establishing the 
Constitution, will be a federal and not a national 
act." 

" That it will be a federal and not a national act, as 
these terms are understood by the objectors, the act 
of the people as forming so many independent 
States, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious 
from the single consideration, that it is to result nei- 
ther from the decision of a majority of the people of 
the Union, nor from that of a majority of the States. 
It must result from the unanimous assent of the se- 
veral States that are parties to it, differing no other- 
wise from their ordinary assent than in its being ex- 
pressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that 
of the people themselves. Were the people regard- 
ed in this transaction as forming one nation, the will 
of the majority of the whole people of the United 
States would bind the minority; in the same manner, 
as the majority in each State must bind the minori- 
ty! and the will of the majority roust be determined 
either by % comparison of the individual votes, or by 



considering the will of the majority of the States as 
evidence of the will of the majority of the people of 
the United States. Neither of tbe*e rules baa been 
adopted. Each State in ratifying the Constitution, 
is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all 
others, and only to be bound by tts own voluntary act. 
In this relation, then, the new Constitution unit, if 
established, be a federal, and not a national Constitu- 
tion." (Federalist, No. 30.) 

Chief Justice Marshall asks, (4 Wheaton, 403) it 
is true, the people assembled in their several States, 
and where else should they assemble? 

Mr- TurnbuD answers; the Convention, had they 
chosen it, might have recommended the State legis- 
latures to have divided their States into election dis- 
tricts, upon some equitable plan agreed on*— or, that 
the people of the different States should vote in 
districts by a general ticket. If it be said, these 
modes of ascertaining the sense of the people were 
impracticable, then it follows, that the assent of the 
people given in any other way, could not possibly 
be the act of the whole people, but of the people 
in their capacity of States. 

Is it not evident, that the northern doctrine, rests 
upon no definite, indubitable cession of sovereignty, 
but on implication and construction alone: that it » 
opposed to historical fact, and was not adopted by 
the Expounders of the Constitution, (the Federalist) 
at the time? 1 shall proceed next week. 

[The concluding number will appear in the next 
Examiner . — Ed.) 

From the Columbia Telescope. 
ALLEGIANCE. 

The Union party affect to believe that this State 
o'ves allegiance to the General Government; that it 
has entered into such an engagement as prohibits 
from setting up its own interpretation of the con- 
tract, in opposition to that of the Federal power. 

On this score we beg leave to offer these gen- 
tlemen a document; the declaration of their now lea- 
ders, in that very session of the Legislature, in 
which the first attempt was made, to bring about 
Nullification — State interposition. 

That very House qf Representatives in which Col. 
Preston's Resolutions bad found only twenty-seven 
or twenty-eight supporters* passed by acclamation, 
without the slightest opposition or a single negative 
voice, the following Resolutions: 

In the House of Representatives, December 90, 

182a 

Resohed, That the opinion of this Legislature, on 
the subject of the assumed right of Congress, to re- 
gulate duties on imports, for the purpose of encou- 
raging domestic industry, as heretofore expressed 
in the various Resolutions adopted in the years 
1825 and 1827, is unchanged; and, after the further 
aggression by the passage of the Tariff Act of 1825, 
this Legislature is restrained from the assertion of the 
Sorsmaieir Rights or th* Stats, by the hope, that 
the magnanimity and justice of the good people of 
the Union will effect the abandonment or a system, 
partial in its nature, unjust in its operation, and not 
within the powers delegated to Congress. 

2.JUsokea\ Tnat the measures to be pursued, conse- 
quent on the perseverance in this system are purely 
questions of expediency avn fot or Aixsei asck, and 
that for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion and 
inviting the cooperation of other States, a copy of 
these snd the Resolutions heretofore adopted by 
this Legislature, be transmitted to the Gevernors of 
the several States, with a request that they be kid 
before the several Legislatures, to determine on 
seen ulterior measures as they msy think the oc- 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



89 



canon demand*: Ordered to the Senate for con- 
Gurence. 

R. ANDERSON, C. H. R. 
Jr the Senate, Dee. 30, 1828. 
Bssoked, That the Senate concur. 

JOB JOHNSTON, C. S. 
We beg the Union gentlemen to remember that 
this waano declaration of a nullifying Legislature. 
It was that of one, in which Unionism was in com- 
plete ascendency. This, in short was a Union — not 
a Nullification confession of Faith* And what does 
it bold forth, as its creed? This: 

7nat the Constitution is a compact between separate, 

^T^iftheL^kUure didsmt, ml828, act defi- 
nitively against the Tariff law of that year, it was from 
no want of legal nor of political right; but, simply, 
that there was hope of a voluntary return, of those 
who were oppressing us. 

That the obedience or disobedience #/ a law of Con* 
grtss, was a ovation of %x*svi*xct 9 not of Ausei* 
▲irea. 

We thank yon gentlemen, for that word, "Obe- 
dtenee, a question inexpediency not of Allegiance. *• 
Why, Judge Johnston, in drawing up the Resolu- 
tions of the late Convention almost used your very 
words. The thought he has not in the slightest de- 
gree varied. We wish you joy of the faces that you 
will make, when the Question in your own very 
form of assertion, shall be presented to you this win* 
ter; for bitter denial, for furious denunciation. 



EDITORIAL CORRESPONDENCE. 



RICHMOND, Va. Aug. 23, 1834. 
The book [New Views of the Constitution, by 
John Taylor, of Caroline] contains and manifests by 
its references to party struggles in the convention, 
a great truth, which should animate us in the glo- 
rious contest of the day (a contest sooner or later 
inevitable in the nature of things, but happily has- 
tened on by untoward circumstances,) and which 
should prevent *\\ petty divisions — all treachery and 
disaffection which may for a time, defeat the high 
and patriotic views of the friends of Republican li- 
berty."*— It is that under our system, the natural di- 
vision of parties is, into one wedded to prerogatives 
and privileges,— labouring to magnify and glorify 
executive power particularly, and power generally, 
and another devoted to the opinions which the book 
contains— devoted to State Rights and strict con- 
struction, accountability and retrenchment. I hope 
it may have some influence at this eventful crisis in 
preventing division, (from devotion to idols — man 
worship, and sectional jealousies) in, and the con- 
"sequent destruction of, a party which has its being 
in a glorious principle. Again, to warn us against 
the evils of a consolidated national government, and 
to point out the erroneous Constructions of the con- 
stitution under the influence of a predilection for 
such a government, were the distinctive objects of 
the author. Tour State appears to me to have for- 
gotten the old republican doctrines which endeared 
her to Virginia, beyond all other States. —Virginia, 
though she cannot conquer these strong feelings of 
partiality, is grieved to And herself since 1815, op. 
posed to Pennsylvania, on all great principles. May 



not the last words of one of her greatest admirers 
awaken your State to the rudiments of her repudia- 
ted principles, or is she yet paralyzed by man wor- 
ship? Would to God I could see that slumbering 
and smothered fire of excitement, which I am told 
has smouldered for years in your State, bursting 
into a blaze, which would illuminate this whole con- 
tinent. But I fear this feeling of disapprobation is 
little 'akin to the burning spirit which once revolu- 
tionized our government, and then we shall look in 
vain at present for those happy demonstrations of 
popular execration of tyranny and oppression, 
which gave to her allies ardour, and confidence and 
energy, in the glorious war of orthodox principles.-— 
She leems to be lulled into a deep sleep, from which 
she is to be awakened only by the dread realization 
of the awful delusion, in which her generous and 
grateful feelings have plunged her. Few of your po- 
liticians, I hope you will excuse my freedom, are 
sufficiently devoted to the interests of the people, 
to endeavour to control public sentiment, however- 
vitiated, or however inimical to the liberties of the 
country. They prefer, rather to gratify and accom- 
plish their own designing and disreputable ends, and 
to attain an ascendency by catering to debased ap- 
petites, and fomenting generous but mistaken excite- 
ments. Perhaps our fellow citizens of Pennsylvania 
will hear calmly and weigh dispassionately a voice 
from (I may almost say) the bowels of Virginia, the 
voice of one who claimed no great/ intellectual me- 
rit, but acquired and sustained an unblemished repu- 
tation for political integrity. The discussion of facto 
in the mild and unpretending language of reason, 
contrasted with the weapons of misrepresentation 
and passion, by which we are assailed, will not be 
lost upon the great jury before whom all political 
questions must, under our system, ultimately be 
brought, and who are assailed with bold delusion 
with regard to the disorganizing tendency of our 
principles and doctrines. Our opponents believe 
(honestly I hope,) that a supreme national govern- 
ment is the best for us.— We believe that a genuine 
federal system can alone secure liberty and prospe- 
rity to our country. They deny the sovereignty of 
the states, or admitting this sovereignty, subject 
it to the "National Government, under the con- 
troul of the people," whilst we contend for an in- 
violable Sovereignty over aU objects to which the 
delegated jurisdiction of the Federal Government 
does not extend by the provisions of the constitution. 
They would persuade us, that a mere ••demarkation 
on parchment, of the constitutional limits of the se- 
veral departments, is a sufecient guard against those 
encroachments, which lead to a tyrannical concen- 
tration of the powers of goternment," but we at 
firm, that each department, and each supremacy 
ought to be, and of right is free and independent in 
its respective sphere, should have, and has, conse- 
quently a will of its own, and tbe means of enforcing 
that will. They derive many of the powers of the 
federal government from' election and represents- 



90 



THE EXAMINER, 



tion, thus confounding the means of exercising pow- 
er delegated with the delegation of power. We 
derive these powers from the constitution, and we 
repudiate the instrumentality of election resorted to 
to change the political action of our system, changing 
our Congress, which by the Constitution is "to con- 
sist of a Senate and House of Representatives" vest- 
ted with u aH legislative powers" granted by it, into 
two distinct representations. We contend that the 
Congress of the Constitution, is neither a conven- 
tion of " State governments" nor of an " Ameri- 
can people," in whole or in part, but a convention 
of States — that State legislatures are the only na- 
tional representations, invested with general pow- 
ers in our country, and that upon their own grounds, 
that as the proportion and principle of representa- 
tion in the State and Federal Governments are not 
the same, the last is invested with limited and not 
national and general powers. The investigations of 
the author of "Taylor's Views" extend to each of 
these subjects and his illustrations and arguments I 
deem not only forcible but conclusive. The histori- 
cal references contrasting the rights possessed by the 
people, under every species of concentrated or con- 
solidated government, with those under our own 
glorious system of co-equal departments, invested 
with the powers of mutual control, which is, (if I 
may use the expression) **the most essential of the 
rights of the people," cannot fail to arrest the discord- 
ant and lawless efforts of the tones to impair, if not 
destroy the powers delegated to the senate, and thus 
impair the rights and liberties of the people, by de- 
feating that division of power, made by them, asa rea- 
sonable security for the preservation of those rights. 



PHILADELPHIA: 



Wednesday i October 15, 1834. 



Election*. — The general election for members of 
Congress, and the State Legislature took place yes- 
terday, the 14th inst throughout the States of Penn- 
sylvania, Ohio and New Jersey. 

Sufficient returns nave not yet been received from 
Georgia, of the election which took place on the 6th 
inst to enable us to form an opinion of the result 

The recent elections in Maryland and Delaware, 
bave resulted in favour of the Anti-Jackson party. 
The same, it is thought, unless the news of to-day 
has settled it, has taken place in Connecticut. 

NULLIFICATION. 

An Intelligent friend has suggested the following 
idea: The doctrine of State Remedies has derived 
no small share of its unpopularity from the fact of 
the term Nullification not conveying the precise 
sense which is intended. The term, to Nullify, sig- 
nifies •to make void," and implies that the Nullify- 
ing body is the instrument by which an act is ren- 
dered null and void, whereas the truth is, that its 
province is simply to declare to be null and void, an 
act which is in itself null android. 



THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. 

A sensible and shrewd friend of ours, a hard-work- 
ing mechanic, who has a head for thinking, as well 
as hands for labouring, has given us the following 
views of an important subject, which are entirely 
new to us, and will probably be so, to many of our 
readers. 

He insists upon it that the District of Columbia, 
although not called a State, is, nevertheless, as 
much of a State as any of the twenty-four. like 
the other States, it has its Legislature, its Judiciary, 
and its Executive; Congress being its Assembly, 
the District Court its Judiciary, and the President 
its Governor, and like them its citizens are invest- 
ed with every right which the citizens of the other 
States enjoy, except the right of chosmg their pub- 
lic servants; and in this respect they differ in no- 
thing from that large class of persons in some of the 
States who are excluded from voting by the want of 
a property, or other qualification prescribed by the 
Constitution. 

Considering these premises as indisputable, he 
thinks that it is wrong to infer from the mere fact 
that Congress constitutes the local Legislature of the 
District, that the people of the other States have 
any right to intermeddle with the internal concerns 
of the District And hence he conceives tliat pe- 
titions addressed to Congress in their capacity of the 
District Legislature, by the inhabitants of another 
State, soliciting them to abolish slavery in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, are as unjustifiable as would be 
petitions from Pennsylvania to the Legislature of 
Virginia, urging that body to abolish slavery in Vir- 
ginia. Congress he conceives, acting as the Legis- 
lature of the District, is bound to avoid all influence 
from foreign sources, and to consult the interests 
and wishes of those for whom they legislate, and 
those of nobody else. If the people of the District 
call for the abolition of slavery in the District, it is 
a different thing, but all attempts on the part of 
others to force upon them a policy to which they 
are opposed, should be repelled. This is due to them, 
even though provision were made to indemnify 
them from loss; but should it be designed by the 
petitioners from other States, to declare abolition, 
without indemnity, it would be as unjust and as un- 
constitutional, as it would be to take from the peo- 
ple of the District, their houses and lands for public 
purposes, without any compensation. 

Having thus, as he conceives, established the 
claims of the District to equitable dealing from the 
States, he insists that the mere power of making 
laws for the District by Congress as the District Le- 
gislature, shall not be exercised to the prejudice of 
the States. He therefore thinks that Congress has 
no more constitutional right to appropriate money 
from the public treasury to the payment of the in- 
terest of the debt of the city of Washington, than it 
has to make an appropriation to pay the interest on 
the debt of the city of Philadelphia or New York* 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



91 



Nor has it any more right to build bridges over the i State Bights in Pennsylvania. — We publUh to- 
Potomac with the public money than it has to build I day the Address of the State Rights Association of 



them over the Delaware or Hudson. If the people 
of the District want bridges and are willing to pay 
for them, let them have them* as the people of the 
different states have them; and if they cannot be 
built without the incorporation of joint stock com- 
panies, why perhaps a power to create them might 
be inferred as incidental to the exercise of the pow- 
er conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, in 
these words:— '"To exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsover, over such District, (not exceed- 
ing ten miles square) as may by cession of particular 
States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the 
seat of government of the United States." 

In these remarks there is much good sense, and 
perhaps tbey contain some hints that persons more 
skilled in constitutional law than a blacksmith, may 
turn to some account. 

Slates or Nations. — It is quite repugnant to the 
taste of many persons to hear it asserted, that when 
the thirteen British colonies of North America de- 
clared themselves independent on the mother coun- 
try, they erected themselves into thirteen distinct 
nations, which they called States, each possessing 
all the rights and attributes of a sovereign nation. 
They seem to think that their union for special pur- 
poses, destroyed their separate nationality, if it ever 
had an existence, and that therefore they are no 
longer nations. And yet these people, can hear, 
without being offended, of the English nation, the 
Scotch nation, the Irish nation, which are united 
under one common head. And pray, suppose Cana- 
da were to declare herself independent on Great 
Britain, would she not be a nation ? And would she 
have been less a nation had she declared her inde- 
pendence in 1776, and made common cause with 
her sister colonies? We are in danger of losing our 
liberties, because we are afraid to call things by their 
right names. The truth is, that a State is a nation, 
and a nation is a State. — They are convertible terms, 
and one signifies nothing more nor less than the 
other, as is proved by the fact that in the Declara- 
tion of Independence, the term " State" is applied 
to Great Britain as well as to the Colonies. Who 
can doubt this when he reads in that instrument the 
following explicit language: 

" That they are absolved from all allegiance to the 
British crown, and that all political connexion be- 
tween them and the State of Great Britain, is, and 
ought to be, totally dissolved; and that as free and- 
independent Skates, they have full power to levy 
war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish 
commerce, and to do all other acts and things which 
independent States may of right do." 

Editorial Correspondence,— -The letter which ap- 
pears in our paper this day, is from a descendant of 
one of those: distinguished republicans of Virginia, 
whose name is identified with the doctrines of '98. 



Bucks County, which is written in a calm and argu- 
mentative style, calculated to make a favourable im- 
pression upon the people, especially, when they see 
in connexion with it, names, long identified with 
the republican party of the State. 

The Gold Coinage. — The party aspect which has 
been attempted to be given to the bill passed by 
Congress in the month of June last, altering the re- 
lative value of gold and silver, has rendered the pre- 
sent moment rather uopropitious for an investiga- 
tion into its real merits. Like the American system, 
it is looked upon as a measure by which one's de- 
votion to a particular man is to be tested, and the 
same repugnancy to listen to arguments against the 
tariff, which a few years ago, was exhibited by the 
friends of Mr. Clay, is now displayed as regards lis- 
tening to arguments against the gold bill, by the 
friends of Mr. Jackson. It is true, that all who ap- 
proved the gold bill were not friends of Mr. Jack- 
son, and that all who opposed it were not his foes, 
but as the vote in Congress was made in a great de- 
gree a party vote, the party which so turned it to 
account are using every effort to reap the fruits of 
their policy. Truth, however, has a power which 
no party management can permanently counteract, 
and the time will come when those who now think that 
an act of Congress has showered gold upon the coun- 
try, will lament the blindess which prevented them 
from foreseeing its baneful effects. 

Our present design is to make a few remarks on 
the subject of the coinage, and as we have no party 
ends to answer, nor no private interest to consult, 
we shall examine the subject purely as a question 
of science, with the design of giving to those who 
desire thoroughly to understand the true state of the 
case, the elements of an investigation. 

Gold and Silver, like all other commodities, have 
an exchangeable value. This exchangeable value 
too, like that of all other commodities, is regulated 
by the cost of production, and by the proportion 
which the supply bears to the demand, and hence, 
these metals differ in nothing from other commodi- 
ties, in this particular. 

If gold and silver could be dug out of the mines, 
be separated from the ore, be smelted and refined 
at one half the actual cost, or, if they were as abun- 
dant as iron and lead, it is manifest that their ex- 
changeable value would be greatly diminished, that 
is, they would exchange for a much less quantity of 
other commodities, than they can now be exchang- 
ed for. Each one of these metals however, is sub- 
ject to its own particular laws, and each one stands 
in relation to all other commodities, in regard to ex- 
changeable value, precisely as any other commodity 
stands in reference to all the rest. 

Between gold and silver therefore, there is not 
any fixed proportion as to value, established by na- 



93 



THE EXAMINER, 



ture, any more than there it a fixed proportion esta- 
blished by nature,between lead and iron, or between 
wheat and tobacco. Nature does not say* that one 
ounce of gold shall always be worth so many ounc- 
es of silver, any more than she says, that a certain 
number of pounds of iron shall always be worth so 
many pounds of lead, or, that a bushel of wheat 
shall always be worth a fixed quantity of tobacco. 
The truth of this proposition must be self-evident to 
every intelligent mind, and we shall not therefor* 
enlarge upon it. 

Taking it therefore for granted that the reader 
admits these premises, the next position to be laid 
down, is, that it is not in the power of human legis- 
lation to establish any fixed unalterable proportions 
between the value of any two commodities in exis- 
tence. It is not in the power of human laws to esta- 
blish that one ounce of gold shall permanently be 
worth a certain number of Ounces of silver, any 
more than they can fix the proportions at which 
iron and lead, or wheat and tobacco, shall be per- 
manently exchangeable, for one another. Laws 
may indeed, undertake to prescribe what they shall 
be, but such laws are founded in absurdity, and bad 
their origin in days of ignorance when the fights of 
political science had scarcely begun to shine. 

It is true, however, that the relative value of gold 
and silver in the market of the trading world, is 
not so liable to fluctuation within short periods, 
as that of most, or all other commodities. It some- 
times remains for years without alteration, but this 
is no evidence that there are not alterations, and the 
mere fact of a change within the last twenty years 
of six per cent affords an unanswerable argument 
against tlie expediency of legal adjustment. For 
how do we know that in the next twenty years 
the proportions may not fall back to the old ratio, or 
advance six per cent, still further? It is also true, 
that the regulations of government* have an influ- 
ence upon the relative market value of the two me- 
tals. They may drive either metal out of circula- 
tion, by rating it too low in reference to the mint 
price of the other, and thus diminish the demand 
for it in their respective countries, which effect 
cannot take place without disturbing the market pro- 
portions in all other countries. But this is rather a 
reason why Governments should not interfere, than 
that they should interfere, inasmuch as greater fluc- 
tuations might take place, than would take place 
from the operation of natural causes alone. Thus, 
suppose that aU the governments of Europe should 
be seised with the silver mania, as ours has been 
with the gold mania, and establish their mint pro- 
portion*, at such a ratio as would drive gold out of 
circulation, and substitute stiver in its place, is it 
not evident that such a measure would enhance the 
value of silver in Europe as exchangeable for gold, 
and thus materially influence their relative value? 
The precise effect of the various mint regulations of 
the different countries in the world, upon the rela- 



tive value of gold and silver in the general market, 
could not be easily ascertained, nor is it essential to 
our inquiry that it should be. 

In the year 1792, when the mint of the United 
States was about being established, and when Bank 
notes were little known, and intercourse between 
distant points of the country not easily carried on, 
it wss natural that the people, who, before the re- 
volution, had been acquainted with guineas, and had 
still strongly impressed on their memories, the fetal 
influence of the continental paper money, should 
desire again to see gold coins in circulation, if for 
no other purpose than the convenience of transmis- 
sion. Hie expediency of adopting one only of the 
precious metals as the standard of the money of the 
country, leaving the other to find its relative value 
by the laws of competition, was not at that time de- 
cided, nor, indeed is it probable that the importance 
and sound policy of adopting such a measure, was 
at that day apparent to many. It was accordingly 
resolved, that gold as well as silver coins should be 
struck at the mint; and in fixing upon the relative 
value of the two metals, one to fifteen was consider- 
ed to be the ratio which would establish an equiva- 
lent currency, and it was accordingly provided, in 
the Act of April, of that year, that in the coins of 
the United States, one ounce of pure, or fine gold, 
should be the equivalent of fifteen ounces of pure 
or fine silver.* 

It so happened, that for some years after the pas- 
sage of this law, the market proportions abroad, as 
well as at home, continued to correspond with the 
mint proportions, so that the two metals were both 
retained in circulation at the legal ratio. Neither 
one was worth for exportation more than the other, 
and hence an eagle and ten dollars were convertible 
terms, and at the banks either could be obtained in 
exchange for notes, at the option of the holder. 

It was in the early part of the year 1818, when 
the subject of the resumption of cash payments by 
the Bank of England, (which had been suspended 
since 1797) occupied the attention of \he British 
public, and prepared the way for the act of Parlia- 
ment to that effect, which was adopted in 1819, that 
a change in the relative value of gold and silver in 
the market of the trading world, first became gene- 
rally apparent in the United States. One ounce of 
gold, from the operation of that or other causes 
which disturbed the then existing proportions be- 
tween supply and demand, became worth more than 
fifteen Ounces of silver. In cases therefore, where 
remittances of coin were made from the United 
States to England, gold was preferred to silver, for 
the simple reason that a gold eagle which could be 
obtained here for ten silver dollars, could in London 

* The weight of the eagle wss fixed tt 247 50-100 grs. 
floe, and tfO grains •tandard gold. The weight <of the 
dollar at 371 SS-ftW grains floe, and 416 standard silver* 
The standard of gold was fixed at 88 earata, that Is 11 
parti fine to 1 part alloy. That of silver at 1485 parts 
fine, to 179 parts alley. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



98 



be converted into more pounds, shillings and pence, 
than ten silver dollars. 

This fact of the exportation of the gold coins did 
not pass unobserved, however, by those who had 
Made the subject of coinage and currency a study. 
The snatter was introduced to the notice of Con- 
gress by Mr. Lowndes, st so early a period as the 
3Tth of November, 1818, when a resolution sub- 
mitted by him was adopted by the House of Repre- 
sentatives, in the following words: 

u Resolved, That a committee be appointed to 
inquire whether it be expedient to make any amend- 
ment* in the laws, which regulate the coins of the 
United States and foreign coins." 

On the 26th of January, 1819, Mr. Lowndes, as 
chairman of the committee appointed under this 
resolution, made a detailed report, favourable to a 
change hi the mint proportion. This report was 
accompanied by a bill, providing as follows: 

1. That there should be retained by the mint as 
seignorege, from every 371 grains and 25-100 of a 
grain of fine silver, (the weight of the dollar esta- 
bftshed by the act of 2d April, 1792,) the quantity 
of 14 grains and 85-100 of a grain, so as to reduce 
Qie weight of the dollar to 356 grains 40-100 of a 
grain of fine silver, and to 399 36-100 grains stand- 
ard silver. Small coins to be in the same propor- 



3. That the Eagle should be reduced from 247 j 
grains fine gold, or 270 grains standard gold (the 
weight established by the act of 2nd April, 1792,) 
to 237 98-100 grams fine, and 259 61100 grains 
standard gold, and small coins in proportion. No 
deduction to be made of the quantity delivered at 
the mint for seignorage as in the case of silver, but 
the expense of refining all gold and silver below 
the mint standard to be paid by the owner. 

Prior to this report, a communication was made, 
on the 6th of January, in pursuance of a call from 
tile Senate, by Mr. Crawford, Secretary of the Trea- 
sury, accompanied by a letter from Robert Patter- 
son, Esq., Director of the Mint, dated 28th Decem- 
ber, 1818, in which that gentleman, adverting to 
the exportation of the gold coins, recommended a 
change in the relative value of ten per cent, which, 
had it been adopted, would have expelled every 
silver dollar and half dollar from the country, in the 
course of a single year. 
Neither of these suggestions was acted upon, nor 
1 was the subject resumed at the next session of Con- 
gress. On the 2d of February, 1821, however, a 
second report was presented to the House of Repre- 
sentatives, by Mr. Whitman, on the part of a com- 
mittee to which had been referred a resolution di- 
recting an inquiry. This report was also accompa- 
nied by a bitl, simply providing for a reduction of 
the eagle and its fractions to the weight prescribed 
by the bill of Mr. Lowndes, leaving the silver coins 
untouched. This reduction was equal to an increase 
in the value of gold of 4 per cent, which was at 
that time considered to be equal to the change in 



the relative value between that metal and silver, 
which had occasioned the exportation of the eagles. 
This is proved by the report, which advances as an 
argument in favour of the ehange, that three half 
eagles, worth in the United States, #15, were worth 
in Spain or Portugal, $16, in France, #15 j, and in 
England #15 1-5. This bill like its predecessor, 
remained without being acted on, and the expor- 
tation of gold coins continued until early in the 
year 1822, when not one was to be seen in circula- 
tion, although six millions of dollars had been coin- 
ed at the mint, of which #1,319,030 were struck in 
1820, and #185,325 in 1821. Had the measure 
then recommended been adopted, the bill would 
have proved inoperative, for at a subsequent pe- 
riod, a greater change than four per cent, in the re- 
lative value of gold and silver took place, which has 
ever since continued to exist, and which would 
have carried off the new coins. 

The death in the year 1822, of Mr. Lowndes, who 
was one of the few individuals in Congress, who 
had turned his attention to the subject of the coin- 
age, and the reluctance of that body to intermeddle 
with a subject of so delicate a nature, jointly com- 
bined to postpone for a time all legislative action on 
the subject. The facilities of remittance afforded 
by bank notes and bills of exchange, and by im- 
provements in rail roads and steam boats, obviated 
entirely the necessity of a gold currency, and as the 
natural course of things, without any breach of pub- 
lic faith or violation of private contracts had placed 
the country in the desirable situation of having but 
one legal tender, we should possibly have for many 
years remained in that situation, had it not been for 
a fresh occurrence by which fancied private inter- 
est was brought to bear upon Congress. That oc- 
currence was the discovery of gold in North Caro- 
lina, and other Southern States, respecting which, 
the following "short notice derived from the annual 
report of the Director of the Mint, of Jan. 1, 1831, 
may be interesting. 

"In the last annual report, the progressive deve- 
lopement of the gold region of the United States, 
was illustrated by referring to the increase of the 
annual receipts from North Carolina, which pre- 
vious to 1824, had been inconsiderable, but from 
that year to 1829, inclusive, had advanced from 
#5,000 to #128,000: and also to the then novel oc- 
currence of gold having been received at the mint 
from Virginia and South Carolina, about #2,500 hav- 
ing been received from the former, and #3,500 from 
the latter. The past year exhibits in relation to all 
those States, a conspicuous increase in the produc- 
tion of gold, and presents, also, the remarkable fact 
of #212,000 in gold received from Georgia, from 
which State no specimen thereof had been pre- 
sented at the mint in any previous year."' 

In the report of January, 1834, the Director gives 
the following statement of the amount of gold re- 
ceived at the mint from the Southern States, in the 
years mentioned, stating at the same time, that he 



94 



hat reason to believe that in the two last yean not 


more than half the 


gold produced in the country, 


hat been received at the mint, the residue having 


been consumed in 


manufactures, or exported in 


bullion. 




1824> 


5,000 


1825, 


. 17,000 


1826, 


20,000 


1827, 


. 21,000 


1828, 


* . 46,000 


1829, 


140,000 


1830, 


466,000 


1831, 


. 520,000 


1832, 


678,000 


1833, 


868,000 



THE EXAMINER, 



$2,781,000 

This gradually increasing production of gold at 
the South, engendered precisely the same spirit, as 
the increased production of iron had done at the 
north. The ownets of the gold mines cried out for 
legislative protection, as the owners of the iron 
mines had previously done, and laws were solicited 
to enable the former to get more for their gold, or 
rather for the rent of their land, than they could 
otherwise have obtained, just as laws were solicited 
to enable the latter to get more for their iron, or, 
for the rent of their land, than they could otherwise 
have obtained. This influence annually increasing 
in strength, constituted a powerful element towards 
a revival of the scheme of changing the relative va 
lue of gold and silver, the history of which is ai 
follows: 

On the 29th of December, 1828, Mr. Sanford, of 
New York, introduced in the Senate of the United 
States, a resolution which was adopted in the fol- 
lowing words, VIZ: 

" Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury 
ascertain with as much accuracy as possible, the 
proportional value of gold and silver in relation to 
each other; that he state such alterations in the 
gold coins of the United States as may be necessary 
to conform those coins to the silver coins in true 
legitimate value, and that he report at their next 
session. 9 ' 

On the 9th of December,* 1829, the same gentle- 
man offered another resolution, which was agreed 
to, in the following words: 

" Resolved, That a select committee be appoint, 
ed to consider the state of the current coins, and to 
report such amendments of the existing laws con- 
cerning coins as may be deemed expedient" 

In compliance with this resolution, Mr. Sanford 
on the 11th of January ,. 1830, made an able report, 
containing a fund of interesting and useful scientific 
matter in reference to gold, silver, and copper 
coins, leaving the question of a change in the rela- 
tive value of gold and silver, unnoticed, with the 
view, no doubt, of waiting for the communication of 
the Secretary of the Treasury, called for on that 
subject. 



That communication was made by Mr. Ingham on 
the 4th of May, 1830, under the title of a ° Report 
from the Secretary of the Treasury, respecting the 
relative value of gold and silver, kc."- It was 
drawn up with great ability, and was the resuk of 
much scientific and historical research, eventuating 
in a conviction on the mind of the Secretary^ that 
it was not clearly advisable to act on the subject, 
but recommending for reasons given at length, that 
if Congress should otherwise decide, the ratio of 
1 to 15,625 would be as near as could be ascertain- 
ed, the proportions between the two metals which 
would make them circulate interchangeably. 

On the 9th of December, 1830, Mr. Sanford re- 
newed his resolution of the preceding session, which 
was adopted, as follows: 

"Resolved, That a select committee be appointed 
to consider the state of the current coins, and to 
report such amendments to the existing laws con- 
cerning coins, as may be deemed expedient." 

In conformity with this resolution, Mr. Sanford 
as chairman of the committee, reported on the 15th 
of the same month, a bill, entitled M an act concern- 
ing the gold coins of the United States." This bill 
reduced the weight of the eagle, (and of halves and 
quarters proportionally) from 270 grains standard 
gold, to 254 grains and 38 53 parts of a grain, being 
an augmentation of the value of gold, as compared 
with silver, of near 6 per cent. This bill passed 
the Senate on the 14th of January, 1831, but was 
not acted upon by the House of Representatives. 
We are not aware that any change was made in its 
provisions, or that any opposition was made to its 
passsge. 

During the same session of Congress, viz: on the 
23d of December, 1830, Mr. Campbell White, of 
New York, introduced into the House of Represen- 
tatives, a resolution which was adopted as follows: 

" Resolved, That a select committee he appointed 
to inquire into the expediency of providing by law, 
that dollars, of the new American Governments, and 
five franc pieces, shall be a legal tender in the pay- 
men^ot all debts and demands; and also, whether 
any additional regulations are necessary, relative to 
the re-coinage of foreign silver coin at the mint; 
and that said committee have leave to report by bill 
or otherwise." 

In March, 1831, Mr. White made a report in pur- 
suance of the foregoing resolution, in which the 
expediency of having only one standard, and that 
silver, was urged, and the proportion of 1 to 15,- 
625 between gold and silver recommended, in case 
Congress should resolve upon a change in the rela- 
tive value. 

On the 15th of December, 1832, Mr. White re- 
newed his motion for the appointment of a commit- 
tee on coins, which was adopted. 

On the 7th of May, 1832, Mr. Wilde, of Geor- 
gia, offered a resolution instructing the committee 
on coins to make tome further inquiries, whicfc was 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



96 



adopted, with the following amendment proposed 
by Mr* Verplanck: 

M And also to inquire into the expediency of 
making silver the only legal tender, and of coining 
and issuing gold coins, of a fixed weight of fine- 
ness, which shall be received in payment of all 
debts to the United States, at such rates as may be 
fixed from time to time, but shall not be otherwise 
a legal Under." 

The session, however, having terminated without 
any act on the subject, Mr. Root, of New York, 
submitted some resolutions on the 14th December, 
1832, which were adopted, calling upon the Direc- 
tor of the mint for information concerning the re- 
lative value of gold and silver, which was furnished 
in a report from that officer on the 14th of Janua- 
ry following. Nothing however was done, until 
the month of June, 1834, when the bill in question 
became a law. 

It thus appears mat the matter had been kept in 
the view of Congress for fifteen years, without 
eventuating in any legislation, and the question 
naturally presents itself, what could have been the 
reason why a matter now considered to be so im- 
portant to the country, should have been so long 
neglected? To this question, we can give a ready 
reply. The matter had not been made aparly ques- 
tion, and being regarded as one of those measures 
Which involved the good faith of. the government, 
and the stability of property, all parties were dis- 
posed, to approach it with great caution, as it be- 
hooved them to do. 

The arguments employed before the passage of 
the bill against interfering with the subject, may be 
simply summed up as follows: 

1. That it is a dangerous policy for governments 
to tamper with their coinsge, as is proved from the 
fact that the British pound sterling, which will now 
purchase only about four ounces of silver, was ori- 
ginally a pound of standard silver, and that the 
French Hare which is now worth only 19 cents, was, 
as its name imports, originally, a pound of silver; 
and that it was to be feared, that, if Congress should 
to-day diminish the weight of the gold eagle, it 
might to-morrow diminish the weight of the silver 
dollar, and thus cheat all public and private credit- 
ors out of a part of their property. 

2. That no law could prevent the fluctuations in 
relative value to which gold and silver are liable in 
common with all other commodities, and that a law 

"made to-day might prove inoperative to-morrow, or 
what would be worse, might require to be changed 
so frequently, as to leave the coinage of the coun- 
try in a disturbed and unsettled state, highly preju- 
dicial to that confidence between man and man, 
which ought to exist, in reference to contracts for 
future payments. 

3. That it is an absurdity to have more legal ten- 
ders than one, from the impossibility of establishing 
an immutable equivalency between two, and that 
as silver was better known to our citizens than gold,. 



especially to the great body of the labouring peo- 
ple, was more convenient for small payments, was 
less liable to be counterfeited, and was the money 
in which most contracts for future distant payments 
were stipulated to be made, it would be unwise to 
enact a law, the effect of which might be to expel 
all the silver from the-*ountry. 

4. That if a new proportion corresponding to the 
present market proportion, were to be adopted, and 
it should so happen that the market proportion 
should hereafter fall back towards the rate of 1 to 15, 
the inevitable effect would be to drive the silver out 
of the country whenever the course of trade should 
warrant exports of coin, and for the identical reason 
that gold had been before driven out 

5. That a law declaring that an existing debt for 
#10, which at the time of the contract, meant ten 
silver dollars, or a gold coin weighing 347 1-2 grains 
of fine gold, shall now* be discharged with a gold 
coin retaining the same name, but weighing only 232 
grains of fine gold, is a law impairing the obliga- 
tion of contracts, and is a breach of the public fat*. 
as relates to all public creditors, and salary officers. 

6. That should tile event take place of silver be- 
ing driven out of the country, its absence would be 
most sensibly felt in all the small money transactions 
of the community, owing to the inconvenience, even 
if they could be had in sufficient abundance, of a gold 
coin of so low a denomination as one dollar. 

7. That this inconvenience would press so heavily 
upon the public, that they would call out for a 
change in the laws, or what is quite probable, that 
they would fly to one dollar bank notes, as a remedy 
for the evil, and thus render the currency as bad 
as it was in 1816, in those States where the banks 
did not pay their notes in coin. 

8. That if congress should, in order to prevent 
this calamity, alter the law, it would not be by in- 
creasing the weight of ihe eagle, but by diminish- 
ing the weight of the dollar, and thus, we should 
lay the foundation for a gradual depreciation of the 
currency, which at some future day might be em- 
ployed to the perpetration of the same species of 
frauds upon public and private creditors, as have 
marked the course of all governments that have 
tampered with their coinage. 

We afe aware that in making these remarks we 
sre treading upon the toes of many of the readers 
of this Journal in Georgia and North Carolina, and 
other States where gold is produced, who will not 
relish a doctrine that seems to be at war with their 
pecuniary interests. We cannot however, permit 
our reverence for what we conceive to be the truth, 
to be smothered by any private considerations. 
We would have prevented the passage of the gdld 
bill, h>d we been able, believing it to be pregnant 
with great future evils to the country, and unattend- 
ed with one single benefit to compensate for the 
mischief it is likely to produce. We think we can 
demonstrate, that as a means of breaking up the 



96 



THE EXAMINER, &c. 



paper system* it is utterly futile, and that as a means 
of putting money into the pockets of the owners of 
gold mines, beyond that inappreciable sum resulting 
from the increased value given to the whole supply 
of gold in the commercial world by the new demand 
lor the American circulation, it will be found wholly 
delusive. We have howevet said enough for one 
occasion, and shall resume the subject hereafter, 
simply remarking, that by the bill, recently passed, 
a change has been made not only in the weight of 
the eagle, but in the standard u\so; the eagle now 
containing 232 grams pure, and 258 grains of the 
ties* standard which is 21-58 carats fine, instead of 
22, which is a debasement, of one and three-quarters per 
cent 

What is Jatksonism? It is a newly discovered prin- 
ciple in politics, which is destitute of principle; a sort 
of double sided doctrine that means one thing and 
its opposite at the same time; a apeciee of humbug 
that asserts one thing to day and another thing to- 
morrow, that signifies one thing at the north and 
another thing at the south. It is in fine, the creed 
of that great party in the United States which has 
heretofore comprised a majority of the people, who 
hold the Slate Rights-Consolidstioa-Free Trede- 
TariiT-Bank-Anti - Bank - Internal Improvement- 
Anti-Internal Iinproveinent-Democntfc-Jefferso- 
nun - Federal - Proclamation-Force-Bill - Protest- 
Veto-Usurpation-theory of government, to be the 
very essence of republican orthodoxy. It puts one 
in mind of the German farmer's wife, wbo, after her 
husband asked her what colour she would like to 
have the house painted, replied, "a little green, a 
little blue, a little yellow, and a little hockany co- 
lour." 

That the reader may see that we have made no 
mistake in our definition, we refer him to the arti- 
cle in this day's paper, headed "Politics for plain 
Democrats— Inconsistency of President Jackson." 

A FOREIGN STATE. 
A case was lately decided in Delaware, involving 
the question whether one of the States of this Union 
is or is not to the others, a Foreign State. The facts 
are these: A vessel owned in Delaware, was fitted 
out with masts, sails, anchors, and cables in Phila- 
delphia, without which she could not have proceed- 
ed on her voyage. By the laws of Pennsylvania, 
the Mechanics who furnished these outfits, had a 
lien upon the vessel, but before any process was 
issued, she left the port, and proceeded to sea. — 
After her return to the State of Delaware, she was 
pursued by the mechanics and was libelled, and the 
case coming before Judge Hall, the District Judge, 
the question presented was, whether the vessel was 
liable, under the laws of nations, to the same pro- 
cess that an English or French ship would be lia- 
ble, under similar circumstances, and it was decid- 
ed in the affirmative, thus adding a new evidence 
that the States of the Union, are not mere corpora- 



tions, stsnding to the United States, In the same 
relation, that counties stand to a State. It is well 
known that the Supreme Court has long since de- 
cided that a bill of exchange drawn by an inhabi- 
tant of one state upon an inhabitant of another state 
is a foreign, not a domestic bill of exchange; and that 
process against the goods of a citizen of one State, 
found in another State, must be by a writ of foreign 
attachment. And yet with such judicial authority 
before their eyes, there are people who really be* 
lieve that the government of the United States is a 
consolidation. 

The following article some time ago appeared in 
the Norfolk Herald:— 

"A correspondent wishes to know how it is that 
so much specie is shipped off for.the use of our 
squadrons on foreign stations, where there is the 
greatest abundance of that commodity, and where 
bills of exchange might be readily converted into 
Spanish dollars at a high premium. He thinks it 
peculiarly injudicious at this time, when thewsntof 
specie at home is beginning to be felt as a serious 
inconvenience. He instances the shipment of 
$20,000, to the Mediterranean, and wonders that the 
Government should risk so large a sum in so small a 
vessel as the Shark, across the Atlantic, at an incle- 
ment season . We regret that we cannot find reasons 
to satisfy our querist} perhaps our prudent Govern- 
ment have decided that it is safer to run the risk of 
the wind and waves, than the liability to damages 
resulting from protested bills of exchange." 

It is no difficult matter for any person who has 
been abroad at ports frequented by American ships 
of war, to assign reasons for the practice above re- 
ferred to. Economy is one object, and the conve- 
nience of the officers and ships' companies is anoth- 
er. The negotiation of bills of exchange upon the 
United States in foreign countries, can only be ef- 
fected to advantage by resident merchants or pub- 
lic agents, who must have a commission for their 
agency, quite equal to the premium which could be 
demanded for insurance on money against sea risk, 
on board a ship of war, and as the United States 
when their cash is once in hand, cannot derive an 
interest from the loan of it, as an individual can, it 
is the same thing to them whether the money is on 
board a ship of wsr, or in the vaults of a bank. But 
it is not the fact as above surmised, that bills of ex- 
change can at all times "be readily converted into 
Spanish dollars at a high premium." The rates of 
exchange fluctuate like the prices of commodities, 
and a commander of a ship of war, might at times 
find it no easy matter to sell s bill upon the United 
States, without a great sacrifice in the price. If too 
he happens to be in a country, where the currency 
is mystified by paper issues, as is the case over the 
whole continent of South America, and happens not 
to understand the bullion question, he will most 
certainly be imposed upon. If the idea of the writ* 
erbe, that bills should be drawn upon London, 
which is probably done for a portion of the naval 
expenditure m the Mediterranean, it wiH at once be 
sees), that a commission must he paid at both ends 
of the bill. 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF 8TATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 

The Powers not Delegated to the United flutes, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the State*, are reserved to the 

States respectively, or to the People Amendments to the Constitution, Art. X 

JVsstfsst of Jndmatrft as sacred as freedom of speech or of tbe press. . Jefferson. 



Vol II.] 



Wednesday, October 29, 1834. 



[No. 7. 



AN EXPOSITION 
Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a trie* of 
Essay*, addressed to Thomas Ritchie* by a distin- 
guished citizen of Virginia* under the signature of 
• € Loc*m» in February, 1833. 
No. IV. 

In my last letter, sir, I submitted for your solution 
t proposition which appears to me to place you in 
considerable difficulty. A lion in the toils might, 
in perfect consistency with his character, decline 
all means of escape, through fear of committing 
his dignity upon an unsuccessful effort. In order 
that 1 may reconcile you to this course, (believing 
that you are already determined on pursuing it,) I 
proceed to show you that you could not escape, if 
you would. 

You will perhaps say, that although a State has a 
right to pronounce on the constitutionality of an act 
of Congress, yet it if, nevertheless, bound to sub- 
mit to an act so pronounced to be unconstitutional, 
until the other States shall have sanctioned its decision. 
This, if it were true, might perhaps afford some 
ground of apology for the President and Congress. 
-It is this which 1 have already alluded to, as present- 
ing the only possible chance of escape from the 
horns of my dilemma. Indeed, sir, it may be use- 
ful for you to know, that a great many of the most 
vociferous denouncers of Nullification go with it, in 
perfect fellowship, until it reaches this point. I will 
endeavour now to show that there is no sort of rea- 
son for separating here; and if I should succeed in 
this effort, you may rely upon it, that a vast number 
who are now in your ranks will desert to mine. I 
affirm, therefore, that the Resolutions of 1798, so 
far from countenancing the idea that a State which 
has pronounced an act of Congress to be unconstitu- 
tional, is bound to obey that law, until the other 
States shall sanction its decision, do distinctly assert 
the precise reverse* This, I doubt not, I shall prove. 
I presume it will readily be admitted, that Madi- 
son's Report, which was made expressly to sustain 
those Resolutions, is a fair interpreter of their mean- 
ing. That Report, after stating the proposition, 
that a where resort can be had to no tribunal supe- 
rior to the authority of the parties, the parties 
themselves must be the judges in the last resort, 
whether the bargain made has been pursued or vio- 
lated," proceeds thus: " The States, then, being 
the parties to the Constitutional Compact, and in 
their sovereign capacity, it follows, of necessity, 
that there can be no tribunal above their authority, 
+ to decide, in the last resort, whether the Compact 
made by them be violated: and, consequently, that 



as the parties to it, they must decide, in the last re- 
sort, such questions as rosy be of sufficient magni- 
tude to require their interposition. From this view 
of the Resolution, it would seem inconceivable that 
it can incur any just disapprobation from those who, 
laying aside all momentary impressions, and recol- 
lecting the genuine source and object of the Fede- 
ral Constitution, shall candidly and accurately inter- 
pret the meaning of tHe General Assembly. If the 
deliberate exercise of dangerous powers, palpably 
withheld by the Constitution, could not justify the 
parties to it, in interposing, even so far as to avert 
the progress ef the evil, and thereby to preserve 
the Constitution itself, as well as to provide for the 
safety of the parties to it, there would be an end of 
all relief from usurped power, and a direct subver- 
sion of the rights specified or recognized under all the 
State Constitutions, as well as a plain denial of the 
fundamental principle on which our independence it- 
self was declared. 99 

This language appears to me to be plain enough 
for any common understanding. It even goes a bow- 
shot beyond the Nullification of South Carolina. — 
That State admits that the other States, acting as 
such, may overrule her decision; but the Resolu- 
tions, as explained by the Report, contemplate such 
decision as •« in the last resort, 9 * and therefore, final 
and conclusive. This must be the correct interpre- 
tation, unless the Report, by the term " States" and 
'« parties," intended to limit itself to the plural num- 
ber, and of course, not to include a single State, act- 
ing by itself. This is, at least, a mere quibble, alto- 
gether unworthy of tbe dignity of the subject; but 
as there appears to be a determination to get rid of 
our old principles in some way or other, their 
friends must not neglect their defence, even at those 
points which would seem to be impregnably in- 
trenched. If, then, the Resolutions do not contem- 
plate the interposition of each State for itself, they 
must contemplate such interposition either by all 
the States, or by a majority of the States, or by a 
plural number, less than a majority of the States. If 
the first Was meant, it was a most useless and a ridi- 
culous parade of argument to prove what is altoge* 
ther Self-evident. Certainly those who made the Go- 
vernment have a right not only to check and control 
it, but even to tmmajee it, whenever all of them con- 
cur in that wish. If, therefore, this be the meaning 
of the Resolutions, they only affirm what no one 
would ever think of denying, and what is equally 
true of other Governments as of ours. Do the re- 
solutions, then, refer to a majority of the States? The 
same remark applies here. The right of a majority 
to rule, is a fundamental principle in all Represen- 



08 



THE EXAMINER, 



tative Government*, supposing always, that they 
exercise that right consistently with the rights of 
the minority. It follows, a fortiori, that they have a 
right to interpose topreventthe minority from Usurp- 
ing upon their rights. If, then, Mi's be the meaning 
of the Resolutions, they employ a very useless so- 
lemnity in affirming a mere truism. Besides, it is 
idle to suppose, that the interposition either of alt 
the States, or of a majority of them, is intended to 
be asserted as a right, when the object is to correct 
the usurpations of that very majority itself Certain- 
ly those who do the wrong, not only have aright to 
redress it, but are in duty bound to do so. Do the 
Resolutions, then, contemplate a plural number less 
than a majority? If so, a single State may act for 
itself upon the same principle; for there is no rule, 
either in ethics or politics, which measures the rights 
of a minority, by the mere number who may happen 
to compose it. Indeed, that the action by a single 
State, for itself, was contemplated, is manifest 
enough, from other considerations. In the first place, 
the language imports it, and will be so understood by 
every reader, who is not prone to look for refine- 
ment and subtlety in every thing. Moreover, it is 
the particular object of the written Constitutions to 
define and limit the powers of the Government; to 
guard against usurpations; to protect the weak against 
the strong; to guard the rights of the minority against 
the encroachments of the majority. The States, when 
they formed the Compact, brought to that work, 
their entire sovereignty, and all their rights. If they 
did not then surrender that sovereignty and those 
rights altogether, they must have designed to reserve 
to themselves, the task of protecting them. A case 
may very well arise, in which an unconstitutional 
law may affect the rights of a single State onto; and 
it would be a mocking of the very name of State 
Rights, to say that in such case, she may not protect 
herself. In what other course can her *<safety" be 
" provided" for ? If twenty-three States should unite 
in cutting up every right which appertains to the 
twenty- fourth, has that State no redress except what 
a "majority" of her oppressors may choose to grant? 
If this be the meaning of the Resolutions, so far 
from affirming and protecting State Rights, they 
affirm that no single State has any rights at all. Be- 
sides, the Resolutions speak only of the reserved 
rights of the States; among which reserved rights, 
is that which authorises State interposition, to ar- 
rest the usurpations of the Federal Government. 
Now, how are these rights "reserved?" Does one 
State "reserve" its own rights to another State, or 
any number of other States? This seems to me, to 
be a grant, and not a reservation of a right. Each 
State, then, reserves its own rights to itself, and the 
Resolutions affirm, that the right to refuse obedience 
to an unconstitutional law, is among those reserved 
rights. Again: If the State may not act upon its 
own decision, until the majority have sanctioned it, 
the right so to decide, is, as to all practical results, 
in thai majority, and not in the State. The State has 
only the right to express its opinion; which opinion, 
although involving her M safety," and her very exist- 
ence, goes for nothing, until approved by others* — 
This is, indeed, a meagre State Right, Mr. Ritchie. 
Besides, sir, is there not some contradiction in the 
positions that a State may declare a law to be un- 
constitutional, and yet that it is bound to submit to 
that law, for some given time? What difference is 
there, in principle, between an obligation to submit 
to an unconstitutional law for one day, and an obliga- 
tion to submit to it for one year or for ev*r? I con- 
fess that I can see none at all. Finally, sir— rfor the 



subject was really not worthy of even these felT 
practical and popular views of it— suppose that this 
other States should refuse to say whether the parti- 
cular State which undertakes to pronounce a law 
unconstitutional, is right or wrong? There are no 
means of compelling them to decide, and of course, 
a majority of the States, upon your supposition, (if 
it be yours,) have only to stand mute, in order to de- 
prive all the other States, and constitutionally too, of 
every right which appertains to them. Nay, even 
if the other States should be disposed \o act upon 
the subject in good faith, the right which the indi- 
vidual State interposes to protect, may be such as 
to be lost for ever, unless it be promptly asserted. — 
Our slave population will at once suggest to you 
such a case. The very delay, therefore, of this pre* 
vious appeal, may be fatal to the very existence of 
the right. I can scarcely think that it was the in- 
tention of the Resolutions of 1798, to produce any 
such result as this. 

And now, sir, let me bring you back^lb my di- 
lemma. The Resolutions of 1798, applied by you, 
acknowledge the right of South Carolina, to pro- 
nounce the Tariff Laws unconstitutional; and do not 
require that she shall forbear to act on that decision 
until it shall be affirmed by a majority of the other 
States. South Carolina has pronounced those laws 
unconstitutional, and you have over and over again 
declared, that she is right in that respect How then. 
can you countenance the President and Congress, in 
subjecting her people to the sword, for not obeuing those 
laws? 1 Would, if a regard to decorum did not for- 
bid it, defy you to the answer. You ought to give it, 
and plainly and satisfactorily too, or else you ought 
to change your course. You are encouraging the 
President in making war upon South Carolina. It 
is war, sir, however you may disguise it — civil war 
— with all its unnumbered train of sufferings, tears 
and sorrows. A husband and a father who contem- 
plates this result, must have a nature more callous 
than I take yours to be, if he can admit into his cal- 
culations, either the "feelings" of a political favour- 
ite, the success of party objects, or the poor pride 
of opinion. You can, if you choose, arrest the wide 
spreading desolation with which our whole country 
is threatened. I beseech you to reflect that it is at 
least possible, that you are permitting innocent blood 
to be shed, when it is in your power to prevent it. 
Shall it not, hereafter, be required at your hands? 

I know, sir, that you have too much respect for 
public opinion and for decency, to urge on the mad 
measures of this administration, without, at least, an 
attempt to justify your course. I read your paper 
constantly, yet seldom, of late, without mortifica- 
tion and sorrow. I have seen upon what grounds 
it is, that you are willing to consign to the sword — 
a sword that was never known to spare— a people of 
as generous and lofty a character, as the whole world 
can show. The President has profited by your sug- 
gestions, and has founded his proposed measure of 
violence and carnage; upon reasons with which you 
have furnished him. The history of that man's past 
life, affords full and terrible proof, that he never 
wants excuses, good or bad, for any outrage which 
he may propose to perpetrate upon the laws and 
constitution of his Country. Posterity will do him 
justice, although this age seems determined to be 
blind to his real character. 1 cannot close these let- 
ters without an attempt to show, that there is no 
reason whatever, which can justify or extenuate the 
sanguinary purpose which he now entertains. I have 
not yet, however, quite done with the subject of 
Nullification. It will be continued in my next letter. 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



09 



From the Columbia Telescope. 
HISTORY OF PARTY NAMES. 

We think that no struggle has ever arisen in mo- 
dern times, between the friends of power, and those 
of popular rights, in which the indignation of the 
latter and the insolence of the former did not mu- 
tually bestow upon each other some cant designa- 
tion* a name in which the plain and downright hate 
of the popular party has usually sought merely to 
express the tyrannical and plundering propensities 
of their oppressors; while those have, almost uni- 
formly, attempted to fix upon their humbler, or less 
powerful adversaries, some phrase of contempt, that 
may intimate them to be a low and vulgar crew, in 
whom it is the height of impudence to claim to 
take any part in the mystery of governing them- 
selves; and who should be exceedingly modest, even 
in endeavouring when trampled on, to abstract their 
unsightly ^and ignoble carcasses from the tread of 
their betters, -born to walk upon their necks! 

Thus the party of the Spanish tyrants gave to the 
first revolutionists of Holland, the name of "Gueux" 
— beggars. It is usually said that the Dutchess of 
Parma inquiring about them of a courtier* (the Count 
de Barlamont) he scornfully described to her, by 
this French word, their meanness and wretchedness. 
The epithet, however, finally became, by dint of the 
brave and honest cause, to which it had been attach- 
ed, one of honour, instead of reproach; as has con- 
tinually happened, in like arrogant attempts of the 
powerful to bear down the weak and oppressed, by 
names of contempt or ridicule. 

In the same manner, the sect of the French Pro- 
testants was stigmatised, in their just, but unhappy 
struggle for religious liberty, by the nick-name of 
'Huguenots;' because (as the Dictionaire de Trevoux 
suggest*) persecution had compelled them to hide 
themselves in caves and holes, and to appear only 
at night; so that they were ridiculed as minions and 
subjects of King Hugues or Hugon (Hugh) the 
great hobgoblin of France. 

So, too, the insurrection of the French Peasantry, 
during the wars between John of France and Ed- 
ward III. was contemptuously called, by the very 
nobles whose wanton oppression and rapacity had 
driven the populace into revolt, "la Jacquerie;" a 
term of ridicule, which some have traced merely to 
the homely name of ** Jacques," (frequent among? 
the common people,) while others, with probabili- 
ty, suppose that the nobles gave it in derision of the 
popular hope of a redress of their wrongs, when 
'•Jacques" (John) should return from his captivity 
in England. 

The word "Lazaroni" (beggars) which now 
serves as the common designation of the lower or- 
der of Naples, was, at first, a political nickname, be- 
towed upon the popular party, by the Court party, 
we believe) in the time of the extraordinary over- 
brow of the government b j the fisherman, Mas- 
saniello. 

The •'Fronde*' (sling) (the popular party under 
the Parliament and Cardinal de Retz) was so called 
because a wit of the Court party, had amusingly 
compared the Parliament to boys flinging stones 
into a crowd, and dispersing, as soon as you attempt 
to catch them; but re-assembling, the moment pur- 
suit ceases. Be Rets, (who well understood how 
these things affect the popular passions,) courted 
the application of the name, because he knew that 
exciting still more the hatred of the people 
against the authors of the ridicule, it could only 
serve to make his party firmer, in proportion as 
angrier. 



In the French Revolution, the Conservatives of 
that day bestowed, upon the party aiming at free- 
dom, the name of "Sans-Culottes," in contemptuous 
allusions to the wretchedness and nakedness of the 
inferior order, whom it was the object of the revo- 
lutionists to elevate to something like security of 
rights. The mere name of " Aristocrate," however, 
with which the people retorted, (though carrying 
with it no natural reproach) had become, through the 
long tyranny of the nobles and their vices, so odious 
and contemptible, that it was far more than repay- 
ment for the jest of the titled orders. 

So too, in the struggle between Charles I. aiming 
at the overthrow of Popular Representation by Par- 
liament, and his people anxious to extend both their 
civil and religious privileges, the licentious nobles of 
the court appropriated to themselves the gallant 
name of "Cavaliers;" giving, at the same time, the 
name of "Roundheads" to the opposite party, whom 
dislike of the profligate mannere of the court had 
urged into the contrary fault, of a demeanour too 
austere and too ostentatiously religious. The court 
fashion of wearing the hair in long, flowing ringlets 
(fove-locke, as they were called) had become to those 
of stricter life and more religious notions, a great 
abomination, as the general sign of licentious habits. 
They therefore adopted the opposite fashion of Co- 
effure; the uncouthness of which and its contrast 
to the elegant and free air of the Cavalier's head 
dress, gave not a little ground for jokes against the 
permns, that would have failed against the principles 
of those ridiculed as "Croppies" and "Roundheads." 
Of all these party designations, however, the me- 
mory, for the greater part, is become merely histo- 
rical. Even those of Huguenot, Puritan, &c. which, 
as marking a religious creed, might have been ex- 
pected to become permanent when once avowed by 
the sect — have passed away. Two, only, of these 
epithets, have survived the times in which they 
arose; and passed into language itself, as words ne- 
cessary to convey certain ideas, that always subsist. 
We mean, of course the names « Whig* and «Tory;* 
which, though of cant origin, like the rest, have 
continued, for near 150 years to be the vehicles of 
the same popular meaning of "friend of popular 
right— friend of liberty?' on the one hand; and on 
the other, ••the King* friends— friends of the go- 
vernment, rather than of the governed. 9 * 

These words are perfectly well understood, in this 
sense, wherever the English tongue is spoken. In 
England, the name of tory recall, too strongly the 
recollection of principles, repeatedly borne down by 
the general disapproval of the bulk of honest and 
sensible men, for any one, except the most absurd- 
ly aristocratic, voluntarily to assume the distinction. 
It is inflicted, never claimed. Still, it is there less 
odious — less damning — than in this country; where 
the party, that originally incurred it, joined to the 
slavish principles proper to the name, such acts of 
treachery to their country, and so much of rapine 
and murder, that they have hitherto been held not 
merely the enemies of liberty, but almost equally, 
of humanity itself. 

At last, however, a party— fomented by the ten- 
dencies of our political system, and directly encour- 
aged and sustained by the administrative power of 
the General Government itself— has arisen, not on- 
ly to urge tory principles, as the proper and origi- 
nal basis of all our free institutions — aa the true guar- 
dians of popular right against governmental power 
—but even to vindicate the memory and acts of the 
most atrocious enemies of their fellow citizens — to 
attempt to stigmatize th© name of "whig," as dis- 
honourable and perniciou* to freedom — and, in a 



100 



THE EXAMINER, 



word, by these things, by the most malignant zeal 
for the advancement of their ill principles, by the 
moat inveterate fury against the name and princi- 
ples of whigism, and by the almost open assump- 
tion of the name of "lory," fixed on them, by gene- 
ral popular assent — to claim as an honour, the long 
settled ignominy of this political appellation. 

In one of our last Nos. we threw together a hasty 
exposure of one of those articles (which the Union 
party presses frequently contain of late) intended 
to justify toryism by falsifying History. Though in 
the country, sick, and compelled to refer to notes, 
instead of books, we have placed in another column 
citations, from a few leading historical authorities, 
that render sufficiently ridiculous the misunderstood 
or garbled passages, which are the only sort that the 
tory party can press into their service. n 

[The following are the historical citations refer- 
red to.] 

WHIG AND TORY. 

"The parties, originally distinguished by the 
names of Cavaliers and Roundheads, changed their 
names into those of Tories and Whigs, from the 
following circumstances: A kind of robbers or ban- 
ditti, in Ireland, who -kept on the mountains, or in 
the islands formed by the vast bogs of that country, 
being called Tories (a name they still bear indiffer- 
ently with that of Rappareew) the king's enemies — 
accusing him of favouring the Rebellion in Ireland, 
which broke out about that time— gave his parti- 
sans the name of To bibs: and, on the other hand, 
the Tories, to be even with their enemies, who 
were closely leagued with the Scotts, gave them 
the name of Whigs; who, living in the fields and 
woods, fed much on milk; Whig signifying Whey. 91 
This is said, in Reese's Encyclopedia, to be the com- 
mon account. 

Rapin's account of the matter is at follows:— 
"Upon the prorogation of Parliament, in 1679, and 
the arrival of the Duke of York, at court, many ad' 
dresses were presented at court, hi abhorrence of 
the former; so that the two parties ' were formed, 
called the petitioners and the abhorrers; and, as the 
animosity between the two parties gradually in- 
creased, they bestowed upon each 1 other names of 
reproach; and from hence arose the so much famed 
distinction of Whig and Tbrt,— the petitioners, 
looking upon their adversaries as entirely devoted 
to the Court and the popish faction gave them the 
name of Tories; a name given to the Irish robbers, 
villains and cutthroats, since called Bapparees.—> 
Thus the name of Tories serves now only to distin- 
guish one of two factions, which still divide Eng- 
land. The abhorrers on their side, considering the 
petitioner* as men entirely in the principles of the 
Parliament of 1640, and as Presbyterians, gave them 
the name of Whig or tour mirf— formerly appro- 
priated to the Scotch Presbyterians and rigid cov- 
enanters." — Rapin vol.2, 712. 

•'Whig: a Scottish as some say, an Irish word, li- 
terally signifying Whey, Tory is another Irish 
word, signifying a robber or highwayman — Under 
tbe reign of Charles IL while his brother, then 
Duke of York, was obliged to retire into Scotland, 
there were two parties formed in that country. — 
That of the Duke was the strongest, persecuted 
the other, and frequently reduced them to fly into 
the mountains and woods, where those unhsppy fu- 
gitives had frequently no other subsistence, for a 
long time, than cow's milk. Hence they called 
their adversaries "Tories," q. d. robbers; and the 
Tories, upbraiding them with their unhappiness, 
from the milk on which they lived, called them 
••Whigs." From Scotland, the two names came 



over with the Duke to England."— Encyclopedia 
(WHIG.) 

Burnet, in the "History of his own Timet," p. 
41, derives the name Whig from the whigamores of 
the West of Scotland. 

"The very name," says Hume (speaking of the 
"Petitioners" and "abhorrers") by which each pari- 
ty denominated its antagonists, discovers the viru* 
lence and rancour which prevailed: for, besides 
petitioner and abhorrer, this year is remarkable for 
being the epoch of well known epithets of Whig 
and Tory." "These silly terms of reproach," 
continues D'lsraeli, in citing the above from Hume 
(and D'lsraeli, let it be observed, belongs to tbe 
high prerogative party) *are still preserved amongst 
us, as if the palladium of British liberty was guard- 
ed by these exotic names (for they are not English) 
which the parties so inviduously bestow on each 
other. They are ludicrous enough in their origin: 
the friends of the Court and the advocates of lineal 
succession were, by the republican party, branded 
with the title of Tories, which was the name of cer- 
tain Irish robbers, while the Court party, in return, 
could find no other revenge than by appropriating, 
to the Covenanters and republicans of that class, the 
name of the Scottish beverage of sour milk, whose 
virtue they considered so expressive of their die* 
positions, and which is called Whig** Curiosities 
of Literature, 2nd series, at the title of "rou-rica* 

HICKHAXSS." 

From the Columbia (& C.) Times and Gazette of 

Srpt. 26, 1834. 

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

Ma. Edito*. — I have argued tbe Consolidation 
question,* from the history of our States at the de- 
claration of Independence— at the. Confederation 
15th Nov. 1777, ratihed by Congress July 9, 1778— 
from the history of the Convention in 1787— from 
the view taken of it in the "Federalist" — and from 
the known technical meaning among us of the poli- 
tical phrases used in relation to confederated States. 
I proceed to other circumstances that exhibit the 
federal or federative character of our present con- 
stitutional Union, and that show it to be a compact, 
between independent States, united for the com- 
mon defence and general welfare, to be pursued by 
the means appointed in the trust-power, called the 
Constitution. 

This is "the Constitution of the United States.^ A 
State, is a nation: a distinct independent political 
community; wherein the people inhabiting a given 
territory, have united for the purpose of living un- 
der a government of their own choice. Several 
States may unite together from a common motive, 
and for particular purposes, without renouncing 
their independence in any other respect, as the 
Lycian, the Achaian, the Amphyctrionic combina- 
tions among the ancients: the Hanse towns, the 
Swiss Cantons, the United Provinces among the mo- 
derns: so tbe Congress at Rochshadt, Liobau, Vien- 
na, fee. recently. See Vattel L 1, ch. 1, sect. 10. 

So, the States, heretofore Colonies, united &**$ 
to form a Confederation, then to form a Constitution* 
The very expression United States, is conclusive to 
show that they were before they convened, when 
they convened, and now are, distinct, independent 
States; the word is plural. They acted throughout 
in that capacity, and there is no clause or phrase 
that shows they have disrobed themselves of that 
character. The old Confederation called themselves 
"the United States:*' that confederation has never 
been denied to be a federative compact; the phrase 
• Set Examiner, page 86. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



101 



then adopted by unanimous consent, has never been 
changed* it means now, what it meant then, a fede- 
ral Union of independent States* 

Every expression must be understood, in relation 
to the subject matter treated of. The- people of the 
United States, (in the plural number) are therefore 
the united people of each separate independent 
State* that acceded to the Union. They are united 
so far as they agree to be so in the Constitution, 
and for the purposes therein mentioned, and no fur- 
ther. Each State therefore, is a party to this Union. 
The States ratified each, by its own convention, be- 
cause a Constitution is the exclusive business of a 
Convention, not of a Legislature. 

Again. They met to consult for the common de- 
fence and general welfare, to be pursued by the 
means described in the Constitution: for those laws 
only, are the supreme law of the land, that are 
made in pursuance of that Instrument This Con- 
stitution therefore, is a creature of the State* who 
gave it existence. It is a delegated authority; a 
trust; as agency* to be pursued in manner and form 
as therein ordained, and no other. The States who 
created it, can alter it, and amend k, as they have 
done. How can the delegated authorities, arrogate 
pre-eminence over the delegating authorities, whose I 
•Sent* they are, wbaiwe them, and pay them for 
their services? How can the Agent hired, and paid 
to execute a trust— a trust alterable, revocable by 
those who created it, pretend to superiority over 
his principal? This seems to roe an absurdity, ap- 
proaching to a contradiction. If the agent exceeds 
his authority, to whom is he accountable but to his 
principal? Who is the principal in the present case? 
The several States, who became In their State ca- 
pacity, the parties to this mutual compact; and to 
the instrument of delegation, the Trust-deed, the 
power of Attorney, called the Constitution, that 
resulted from that compact. 

This trust power, the Constitution, like all other 
entrusted powers, must be construed strictly. It is 
the universal law of Agencies, here and every where 
now and heretofore. Nan alia lex ifeoMS, alia 
Mkmti*. If I allow my Mandatory, my Agent, my 
Attorney, my Trustee, discretionary power on a par- 
ticular paint, he may use it because 1 have permit- 
ted him to do so; but in no other case. If I have 
not expressly permitted him to use his discretion, 
he has no right to do so« he must follow the instruc- 
tions 1 have given him, and which he has underta- 
ken to obey. Diligenter fine* mandati customtndi 
sunt/ nam quicxcepit, aMudauidfaeere mdctim, says 
Faulus Dig. 17. 1. 5. This (says Livermore, vol. 1 . 
page 94* on Agency) is law at Westminster, and in 
the Courts of the United 8tatea> as well as at Rome. 
Sugdtn, in his treatise on Powers, page 214, says, 
u The rule that every circumstance required to the 
execution of a power, must be strictly attended to, 
is so clear and plain a rule, that we might here dis- 
miss this part of the subject, if there were not ma- 
ny cases in which particular expressions, imposing 
restraints on powers er modes of executing them, 
had not received a judicial construction/' 

Again. In the amendments to the Constitution, 
made by the States, it is declared " that the pow- 
ers not delegated to the United States by the Con* 
stitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- 
served to the States respectively, or to the people." 
I The people is a word used as synonimous with 
/ State* for with us in North America, a State is the 
' People in Convention. The departments of go* 
rernment, arc all subordinate and derivative. The 
powers granted, are expressly said to he delega* 



Now, a right cannot be reserved that did not ex- ; 
tst before the reservation. To whom, and by whom, , 
is it reserved' The principal, who delegated the ^ 
rest. Who is the principal? The States who unit- \ 
ed to sanction this delegation: the United States.— 
But can there be any reservation to States whose 
independence has been renounced, prostrated, sunk, 
merged, absorbed in the supreme paramount power 
of the Federal Government? To municipalities? 
To mere local jurisdictions, exercising authority un- 
der the surveillance of the great central govern- 
ment? The notions are incompatible; and the con- 
clusion is, that the reservation is made to, as the de- 
legation was made by, the sovereign, independent 
States, the term of whose compact is to be found in 
the Constitution, and whose agents have no power 
beyond it. 

But of what description were the rights reserved? 
State rights; for there was question of no others. 
This amendment therefore acknowledges the States 
as distinct independent communities; States; having 
rights in that capacity, which they did not think pro- 
per to delegate. 

Again. Your President is chosen by State Elec- 
tors, who vote within their respective States. 

The mode of voting in the Senate, which is a re- 
presentation of the States as such, all upon an equal 
footing, is incompatible with any presumption of in- 
feriority on the part of the States. It is standing 
proof that States, distinct and independent, do still 
exist, and form part of the central government, 
with equal rights as States. What can designate a 
federal compact so perfectly as a representation by 
States, and a voting by States, without regard to 
population? But it is said, the national character is 
exhibited in the House of Representatives; who re- 
present the whole people of the United States, in 
their aggregate capacity. JL*t us see if this be so 
in fsct. If it were so, then would the 8tates have 
been districted for the purpose of electing tltese 
popular representatives. Instead of this, the repre- 
sentatives are elected in their respective States; and 
even where the population will not entitle a State to 
a representative, yet it is entitled to one as a State, 
in despite of its defective population. 

If the House of Representatives were the repre- 
sentatives of the whole people, as one compact body, 
one amalgamated, undistinguished mass, then the 
qualification* of Electors would have been provided 
for in the Constitution, or left 19 Congress; whereas, 
it is actually a State affair, and varies in each State 
as to members, or property, or both. Thus chosen 
on State principles exclusively, the members are the 
representatives of those who actually choose them; 
and no^ of an unknown aggregated population, 
whose separate existence is sanctioned by no defi- 
nite expression, demonstrated by no act, and support- 
ed by no authoritive acknowledgment. 

Again. I would urge, a* conclusive of the contro- 
versy, this position. The States when they formed 
the Old Confederation* and when they met in May, 
1787, at the recommendation of Congress to revise 
that Confederation, met as separate and independent 
States, and in that character, they discussed, voted, 
and recommended the present Constitution, to be 
adopted by the people of each State in their own 
separate State Conventions. I hope and presume 
there will be no controversy thus far. 

If they, by any solemn act, or by any plain distinct 
acknowledgment, surrendered and renounced their 
sovereign and independent character as States, and 
merged it in the present federal government, as the 
only paramount sovereign, despotic, and in acts and 
doings, uncontrollaWe— ihe States Rights Advocates 



102 



THE EXAMINER, 



rnuit give up their argument as untenable: but 
where is (his renunciation to be found m plain and 
direct expressions that no one can mistake? No 
where. Where is it said, that sovereign power shall 
exclusively reside in the central government of the 
United States? No where. 

Is it to be claimed for the federal government, by 
implication and construction of some phrases which 
outstretched ingenuity can cloathe with a doubt? Is 
this the ground taken by the Northern Consolida- 
tionists? Yes, it is: they have no other. Their very 
doubts and difficulties, — their necessary reliance 
upon disputed implication and construction, is of it- 
self conclusive against them. Can this be sufficient 



of the United States, is shown by its exercise of So- 
vereign power. 

The United States Constitution, does not mention 
the word Sovereign. The United States govern- 
ment, was appointed the agent for external rela- 
tions: the State governments for domestic relations. 
This is the broad, intelligible division of authority'; 
to which there are a few, very few unimportant ex- 
ceptions, such as acts of Bankruptcy, patent rights, - 
and the federal judiciary in certain cases. The pow- 
ers termed in vague and popular language, Sove- 
reign powers, (no where recognised in the Consti- 
tution) so fsr as they are granted, seem necessary to 
the delegated functions of the federal government. 



and satisfactory evidence, of freedom and indepen- But it is not the nature of the powers delegated* 



dence, solemnly surrendered? 

Under the old feudal Law, a villain might be set 
free by implication and construction, but no freeman 
could be made a villain but by plain express surren- 
der. Even the devenio outer homo, extended no fur- 
ther than suit and service in the proportion settled 
for the quantity of land he held in feudality. 

We are merged in the abyss of federal jurisdic- 
tion; are we? Produce the bond: shew us plainly, 
distinctly, in undeniable expressions, when and how, 
and where, and by what means, and by what deed 
or clause of undeniable surrender, we committed this 
idiot act of suicide! Exhibit to us what never ex- 
isted. 

Again. When on the 17th Sept. 1787, the Con 
stitution was adopted, and the Convention adjourn- 
ed, who adopted it? The representatives of the 
whole people of the United States? No: it was 
M Done in Convention by the unanimous consent of 
the States present" Who ratified it? for here is 
the pinch of the argument. 

It was to be transmitted to the several Legislatures 
to be ratified or not, by the delegates ehoten to a Con- 
vention in each Slate, by the people thereof. 

Was it submitted to the delegates of the people 



that constitutes a sovereignty, for the King of Great 
Britain, granted Sovereign powers of almost every 
description in the first Charter of South Carolina, 
reserving only a quit rent to the crown. It is the\ 
power that grants, that gives, that delegates, that | 
can revoke, alter, amend— that is the Sovereign J 
power. The agent, the receiver, the salaried func- 
tionary, whatever be the importance of the powers 
delegated, is the secondary, the subordinate autho- 
rity. This is too obvious, from the very nature of 
the case, to be contested. 

That States may enter into a federal republic,and 
. put some restraint on the exercise of their previous 
1 rights of sovereignty, without any violence being* 
offered to the sovereignty of each member of the 
compact, is expressly stated by Vattel, Book 1, ch. 
1, sec. 10, and by Punendorff, Book 7, ch. 5; refe- 
rences that ought to be consulted. 

I copy the following from the Augusta Chronicle* 
July 7, 1832. M It may be observed, that the rights) 
of the States are two fold. 1st. Those enumerated 
in the Constitution, and 2dly, those out of the Con- 
stitution. The following are some of the principal 
rights out of the Constitution, which cannot be exer- 
cised, save, by a free, independent, and sovereign 



of all the States indiscriminately? Or to the people State. 1. To protect the liberty, and property of 



of North America? Or to the people composing the 
former Colonies? Or to the people of the United 
States indiscriminately? No: no such body as the 
people of the United States— or of the States in the 
aggregate— or of the States amalgamated together 
— or without distinction — no such people ever met, 
were ever known, or in any manner recognized. — 
The people in Convention, in each sovereign and 
independent State, we know. They often convene, 
7%e people of the United State* as one body, never 
did meet, and are utterly unknown. The people of 
South Carolina, are the people of 8outh Carolina 
alone. What have they to do with the people of 
Maine, or Vermont, or Louisiana? — To South Caro- 
lina these are foreign nations; every Lawyer knows 
this. The fact— the fact not to be put aside, is, that 
the Constitution was submitted specifically to a con- 
vention of the people of each distinct, and indepen- 
dent State: and it was so ratified by the common 
compact of each Stale who acceded to it: The peo- 
ple in Convention in each 8tate, were considered as 
the only competent State authority, to adopt or re- 
ject a proposed Constitution. 

The whole people in the States, were at that 
time, not quite four millions. Of these, the States 
containing 622,030 could have annulled the Consti- 
tution of the Convention. That Convention relied 
upon 9-13ths. of the States numerically, not 9-13ths 
of the people numerically. Is it not egregious ab- 
surdity to call this the Constitution of the aggrega- 
ted people of the United States, when l-7th part of 
the whole population might have annulled it? 

But it is said, that the sovereignty and supremacy 



its citizens. 2. To veto an unconstitutional Law of 
Congress, and protect their citizens from its opera- 
tion. This results from the articles of the Constitu- 
tion, and the unceded sovereignty of each State. 
3. Jurisdiction over all the territory, soil, lives, and 
property of their citizens within their chartered lim- 
its. 4. The right to protect and encourage domes- 
tic manufactures, if they see fit— a right proposed 
for Congress in Convention, and rejected. 5. To 
endow and encourage institutions of learning; not 
permitted to Congress. 6. To protect, encourage, 
and prosecute internal improvement; not allowed to 
Congress. 7. To prevent the quartering of Unit- 
ed 8tates troops within their borders in time of 
peace, without their consent. 8. To establish and 
charter banking and other incorporations: refused 
to Congress. 9. To regulate exclusively, their slave 
property. 10. To repel invasion, from whatever 
quarter made. 11. To arm, train, *nj command 
their own militia, and direct their movements within 
their own limits. 12. To establish Quarantine laws, 
and regulate the entrance and departure of all Tea- 
sels to and from their own ports. 13. To tax for- 
eigners emigrating to their shores. 14. To punish 
treason, insurrection and rebellion against the State. 
15. To levy taxes On their own citizens and their 
property, or whatever description it may be. 16* 
To regulate the rate of interest of money in their 
own State, and to make loans. 17. To govern all 
Indian tribes residing within their limits. 18. To 
refuse sending members to Congress. 19. To re- 
fuse to join in the election of a President. 20. To 
protect all the natural rights of man, freedom of 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



103 



conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of the I 
press* the right of personal liberty, personal secu- 1 
rity, and self-defence, and the pursuit of happiness. 
And concomitantly the right of Hsbeas Corpus, and 
the trial by Jury; means prescribed among us as 
guards over these rights." 

Other considerations might be added in corrobo- 
ration of these arguments, but they are needless. I 
* address these to the South, whose rights and liber- 
ties are now placed at the mercy of a northern/ ma- 
jority, bent upon succeeding in their scheme of le- 
gisktire subjugation; and they will succeed to a cer- 
tainty, in establishing a Consolidated government 
over the States, if the South are not more alive to 
the danger, than they seem to be. In fact, and at 
this moment, the republic of the Untied States doe* 
not exist* You of the South are labouring for the 
benefit of the North; a Northern majority are your 
Sovereigns, and if you choose to submit, so be it. 

from the CeJumbm(Qeo.) Enquirer. 
GEORGIA ivb THE SUPREME COURT. 

In the case of Cohens vs. The State of Virginia, 
decided some few years since, it was held by the 
Supreme Court, (in its opinion delivered by the 
Chief Justice,) that the Judicial authority of that 
tribunal embraced a case, where one of the State* 
sjoas summoned to He bar as appellee, to answer the 
complaint of one of its own citizens. 

The counsel for the State of Virginia were instruc- 
ted to question ibe jurisdiction of the Court alone— 
and if overruled, to decMnefurther appearance on the 
part of Virginia. 

They did so. The Court assumed the jurisdiction, 
but upon the merits decided against the appellant. 

In the late case from Georgia, that State (warned 
perhaps by the fortune of Virginia at the federal 
t>ar,) declined appearing at all. 

The jurisdiction, where a State is brought in as 
appellee, was again asserted— and a mandate has gone 
forth, whereby judgment is ordered against a State. 
tt remains to be seen how that judgment is to be 
enforced-- or in other words, how (he State of Geor- 
gia is to be coerced into obedience to the mandate of 
the Supreme Court. 

The sanction of judicial authority, when exercis- 
ed toward a citizen, is matter of every day expe~ 
rience. A fieri facias will strip him of bis property. 
A capias will deprive him of his liberty— or by the 
fist of the judge, his life may be taken. What sanc- 
tion there is to judicial authority, when assumed to- 
ward a State, is a problem yet to be solved. 

In the mean time, and while the question is pend- 
ing, let me call the attention of your readers to the 
•peculations of some of the sages and best statesmen 
of Virginia, on this very subject: 

On Che question whether, under the Constitution 
of the U. S., a State could be brought into the Fe- 
deral Courts as defendant— The question, I appre- 
hend to be the same, when summoned as appellee— 
this being but a name for the defendant in error, as 
the Lawyers term it 

I quote from the debates in the Virginia Conven- 
tion, called to consider the form of government pro- 
posed to the States, by the General Convention at 
Philadelphia— L e. the present Constitution of the 
United States. 

The Judiciary clause being under consideration, 
{Elliott's debates, vol. 2d, page 386]— Gioaea Ma- 
son*, objecting to so much of the Judiciary clause as 
extends the jurisdiction of the Federal Courts, " to 
controversies between a State, and citizens of ano- 
ther State.") 

" How will their jurisdiction in this case do? Let 
gentlemen look at the westward— chums respecting 



those lands. Every liquidated account, or othe r 
claim against this State, will be tried before the Fe 
deral Court. Is not this disgraceful? Is this Stale 
to be brought to the bar of justice like a delinquent indi- 
vidual? h the sovereignty of the State to be arraign' 
ed like a culprit or private offender? Will the States 
undergo this mortification? 1 think this power per- 
fectly unnecessary. 

" But let us pursue this subject further. What is 
to be done, if judgment be obtained against a State? 
Will you issue a fieri facias? — It would be ludicrous 
to say, that you could put the State's body in jail. 
How is the judgment then to be enforced? A power 
which cannot be executed, ought not to be granted. 

44 Let us consider the operation of the last subject 
of its cognizance— controversies between a State, 
or the citizens thereof, and a foreign State, citizens 
or subjects. There is a confusion in this case — this 
much, however, may be raised out of it — that a suit 
will be brought against Virginia. She may be sued 
by a foreign State. What reciprocity is there in it? 
In a suit between Virginia and a foreign State, is the 
foreign 8tate to be bound by the decision? Is there 
a*similar privilege given to us in foreign States? — 
Where will you find a parallel regulation? How will 
the decision be enforced? Only by the ultima ratio 
Begum." 

Jambs UtoiSbsr, (defending this clause,) and in 
reply to Mr. Mason, page 390:— 

" Its jurisdiction in controversies between a State 
and citizens of another State, is much objected to, 
and perhaps without reason. It is not in the power 
of individuals to call any State into Court. The only 
operatioo it can have, is, that if a State should wish 
to bring suit against a citizen, it must be brought 
before the Federal Court This will give satisfac- 
tion to individuals, as it will prevent citizens, on 
whom a State may have a claim, being dissatisfied 
with the State Courts. It is a case which cannot of- 
ten happen, and if it should be found improper, it 
will be altered." 

" It appears to me, that this" (the clause in ques- 
tion) M can have no operation but this — to give a 
citizen a right to be beard in the Federal Courts — 
and if a State should condescend to be a party, this 
Court may take cognizance of it.'*— (page 391.) 

Patsick Hihby (in reply to Mr. Madison, page 
394):— 

" Mr. Chairman; I have already expressed painful 
sensations at the surrender of our great rights, and 
I am again driven to the mournful recollection. The 
purse is gone — the sword is gone — and here is the 
only thing of any importance that is to remain with 
us— -As I think, this is a more fatal defect, than any 
we have yet considered, forgive me if I attempt to 
refute the observations made by the honorable mem- 
ber in the Chair, and last up. It appears to me, 
that the powers in the section before you, are either 
impracticable, or \f reducible to practice, dangerous in 
the extreme." 

(Page 397.)— "As to the controversies between 
a State and citizens of another State, his construc- 
tion of it, is to me, perfectly incomprehensible. He 
says, it will seldom happen that a State has such 
demands upon individuals. There is nothing to 
warrant such an assertions But he says, that a State 
may be plaintiff' (m hi' If gentlemen pervert the 
most clear expression, and the usual meaning of the 
language of the people, there is an end of all argu- 
ment. What says the paper? That it shall have cog- 
nizance of controversies between a State, and citi- 
zens of another State, without discriminating be- 
tween plaintiff 'and defendant. What says the hon- 
orable gentlemen? The contrary-^that the State 
can only be plaintiff. When the State is debtor, 



104 



THE EXAMINER, 



there is no reciprocity. It seems to me that gentle- 
men may put what construction they please on it. 
What! Is justice to be done to one party, and not 
to the other? If gentlemen take this liberty how, 

"WHAT WILL TRKT SO, WHIR 6Ult RIGHTS AND LIRIR* 
TUB ARE IK THEIR POWER?'* 

John Marshall (in reply to Mr. Henry, page 
405:) " With respect to disputes between a State, 
and the citizens of another State, its jurisdiction has 
been decried with unusual vehemence. 1 hopeim 
gentleman will think that a State will be called at 

THE EAR Or THE FEDERAL COURT. 

" Is there no such case at present? Are there not 
many cases in which the Legislature of Virginia is a 
party, and yet the State is not sited} It is not ra- 
tional TO SUPPOSE THAT THE SOTERRIOV POWER SHALL 
REDRAOOED BEFORE A COURT. 

" The intent is to enable States to recover claims 
of individuals residing in other States. I contend 
* this construction is warranted by the words. But, 
say they, there will be partiality in it, if a State can- 
not be defendant; if an individual cannot proceed to 
obtain judgment against a State, though he may be 
sued by a State. It is necessary to be so, and 

CANNOT BE AVOIDED 1 SEE A DIFFICULTY IN MAKING 

a state defendant, which does not prevent its be- 
ing plaintiff." 

The debaters Of this grave and momentoas sub- 
ject, Mason, Madison, Henry and Marshall, Were the 
ablest of Virginia's statesmen. Two of them with 
forecast somewhat remarkable, suggested that the 
day might come, when a Federal Court, under the 
letter of the Constitution, might presume to summon a 
State to its bar, and arrogate authority to sit the ar- 
biter of its rights. The two others repudiated the 
idea — and one, even denounced it as an irrational 
supposition, that the sovereign power could be dragged 
before a Court* 

It has occurred to me, Mr. Editor, that the a dif- 
ficulty** seen by Mr. Marshall, in making a State de- 
fendant,, was the very difficulty I have ventured to 
■uggest, in introducing these extracts from the de- 
bate — the difficulty of compelling obedience to the 
mandate of the Court— sed non noslri tantas compo- 
mrelUts. 

Edmund Burke once said, that he could not frame 
an indictment against awhole people. What propor- 
tion will the difficulty of framing the indictment, 
bear to the difficulty of executing the sentence of 
that Court? 

1 understand the Supreme Com* has overcome 
the difficulty of framing the indictment* Next 
comes the execution of its sentence — hie labor— hoc 
opus. 

If there be a jurist! within the scope of your 
readers, who can solve this problem, he will confer 
a favor upon one in search of truth— And, perhaps,' 
help the 8upreme Court out of a dilemma, as we 
understand that the Court appealed from, and the 
State of Georgia, disregarding its mandate, th'a" dif- 
ficulty" will arise on the return of the postea. 

HENRY OF '88. 



U. S. BANK. 
Below is an abstract of the monthly statement for 
October. In comparing it with the statement for 
September, it appears that the loans of the Bank on 
personal security are near $200,000 more, and on 
domestic bills of exchange $1,300,000 leas, leaving 
the aggregate of loans more than a, million less th*n, 
on the first of September. The. specie in the vaults 
of the Bank, is increased #1,700,0001 its circulation 
Is increased half a million, and its funds in Europe, 
diminished $700,000. The Bask bat now means ra 



hands sufficient to meet the whole amount of ks 
obligations of every kind. It will be noticed that 
the discount line of the Branch in our city is very 
much reduced from what it was last winter. The 
curtailment of the Bank during the month of Sep- 
tember results from the same cause which for some 
months past has been producing the same effect, 
viz: the paying off of domestic bills of exchange, 
while at the same time the abundance of money in 
the market has prevented other borrowers from ap- 
plying for the sums paid in. The Bank, we. know, 
has exercised a most liberal policy in its loans, dis- 
counting very long paper, at least in payment for its 
bills of exchange on Europe. The money, however, 
is not wanted at present, and the Bank finds it im- 
possible to keep up its loans. In fact money is now 
on all hands seeking borrowers. 

The following is the general state of the Bank: 
Loans on personal security, 80,461,199 23 

bank stock, 1,073,827 61 

other securities, 3,587,813 70 



Domestic Exchange, 



Baring, Brothers fc Co. 

Specie, 

Redemption of Pub. Debt-, 

Treasurer of the U. States, 

Public Officers, 

Individual Deposites, 

Circulation, 

Due from State- Banks, 

Due to State Banks, 

Notes of State Banks on hand, 



35,122,840 54 
10,883,951 21 

$46,006,791 75 

3,050,247 39 

15,561,364 98 

282^33 92 

351,654 24 

1,406,36* 74 

6,912^91 71 

15,637,676 47 

2,127,438 84 

2,946,149 04 

1,568,247 00 



The state of the principal Branches is as follows: 

PHILADELPHIA. 

J, cans on personal security, 3,273,990 36 

bank stock, 224*913 00 

other securities, 2,327,788 SO 



Domestio Bills of Exchange, 



Due from other Banks, 

Due to other Banks, .. 

NEW YORK. 

Loans on personal security, 
bank stock, 
other securities, 



Domestic Bilk of Exchange, 



Due from other Banks, 

Doe to other Banks, 

BOSTON. 

Loans on personal security, 
bank stock, 
other securities, 



Domestio Bills of Exchange, 



5,826,691 86 
1,338,807 59 

7,165,499 45 

647,325 36 

1,016,804 61 

4*630,025 04 

76,300 00 

203,889 81 

4,710^14 85 
1,291,497 52 

6,001,712 37 
247,239 72 
744,683 40 

1,577,950 90 
35,668 30 
30,107 00 

1,643,726 20 
l,471»8t9 35 



3,115,535 55 
202 431 51 
369,089 24 



Due from other Banks, 
Dneto other Banks, 

BALTIMORE. 

Loans on personal security, 1,60*407 01 

bank stock, 1 IT, 530 00 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



106 



other securities, 
Domestic Bills of Exchange, 



Due from other Banks, 
Duo to other Banks, 



50,200 00 



1,772,837 01 
137,611 55 

1,910,448 56 
108,391 34 
263,341 19 



From the Petersburg Intelligencer. 
THE OLD ROMAN. 
iS quid JfV^uri* si erttUmus ArmiUato, 
Qmequid conspieuum pulchrumque est aequore toto 
liesjtsei est, ubicunque natat. 
a • • 

Nihil est, quod credere de se 
Non posset, cum toudatur Bis sequaprotetta*. 
If we may credit Taney, Kendall, Blair, 
Whatever excellent, whatever fair, 
Or bounteous Earth or Ocean's commerce brings, 
Is public property— of course, the King's. 

Nought said of him the Chief, while flatt'ry rages. 
Can doubt, while likened to the "Rock ot Ages." 



Editors: 

I am a crusty old fellow, who makes out to en- 
dure the vexatious pervereeness, obstinacy, and fol- 
ly of the present generation, only by an occasional 
excursion into the realms of antiquity, to recreate 
my weary spirit. None of your netf 'fangled Re 
publicans or hoi-headed NuUifiers can form an idea 
of the intellectual banquet a loyal subject, like me, 
enjoys during a visit to good old Rome, the eternal 
city— I love old Rome, and old Roman's too; Young 
Rome was never to my taste; they brawled too 
much about liberty, rights, and *%1I that;" besides, 
their tribunes were NuUifiers, and they were go- 
verned by a Senate. I never could endure a Senate 
and love it now less than ever — look at the fuss our 
8enate made t'other day, merely because oar vene- 
rable and beloved Hero, "the greatest and best of 
men," turned off a petty Secretary, who, forsooth 
would not obey his master for fear of violating his 
own conscience! conscience of a Secretary!! Now, 
Messrs. Editors, let me ask you what business has 
a Secretary with a conscience or any such stuff? — 
aye, or with understanding either? Is not the Presi- 
dent sworn to execute the laws? and must he not 
execute them according to his own understanding 
and his own conscience, and not according to the 
conscience or understanding of a Secretaryr Then, 
gentlemen, let me ask you again, what use has a 
Secretary for either conscience or understanding? 
Must not the cabinet be a unit, and how could that 
be unless one conscience and one understanding 
served for all!— and pray, whose conscience or un- 
derstanding should this be? surely that of "the 
Seatest and best." General Jackson is the unit — 
e other figures sre not significant— he is the Go- 
vernment We certainly have a very weak Senate, 
or they would see these things as I do; I do not 
know that even one of them is entitled to write L. 
L. D. after his name; they are troublesome and 
should be put down. It hi really insufferable that 
such weak, uninformed men as Leigh, Calhoun and 
Webster, should presume to dispute a point of con- 
stitutional law with Dr. Jackson. Commend me to 
the good old Roman times of Caligula or Domitian; 
these were the men to manage Senators and Judges 
—the men to aet on their own responsibility. All 
things under heaven belonged to these august per* 
•a in reason, they ought; and, what is still 



better, they were as proud of it as Andrew Steven- 
son is of belonging to our Hero; the fish in the sea 
were theirs, and voluntarily swam tp the net, ambi- 
tious to be served up at the imperial table. Your 
cavilling NuUifiers will affect to doubt this univer- 
sality of allegiance (I hate NuUifiers; they are all 
Atheists) but I assert the fact on good authority, 
which 1 always prefer to reason. The honest fish- 
erman, who presented the celebrated turbot to Do- 
mitian, affirms that it came expressly to be caught 
ipse capi votuit. You may depend upon it, Messrs. 
Editors it swam into the net as willingly as Mr. 
Rives would, if the next Virginia Assembly would 
condescend to immesh him for the President's ta- 
ble. They are both mirrors of loyalty, man and fish, 
and it ia tor that reason 1 hold them up together; I 
wish we could send one of them to the Senate of 
the United States, but I know we cant; the Assem- 
bly wont fish for either. Confound the Senate, 
they cross me at every turn. Did not our beloved 
President prove to them that all public property 
belonged to him, as clearly as I have proved that 
all fish belonged to Domitian, e. g. 

Major— The custody of every species of public 
property is a function of the Executive. 

Minor — Public money is a species of public pro- 
perty. 

Conclusion — Ergo, the custody of the public mo- 
ney is a function of the executive, Q. E. D. 

Show me a Nullifier who could construct so tri- 
umphant a syllogism ss this. Yes, sirs, this is rea- 
soning — '/whenever or however obtained," [wheth- 
er delivered or seized] "its custody always has been 
and always "must be, unless the Constitution is 
changed, entrusted to the Executive," i. e. to the 
General—he is the unit. Dialectitians like Web- 
ster may quibble about the petitio principii in the 
Major which assumes the conclusion* but dont listen 
to such people — pray, sirs, inform me how can a 
syllogism be the worse from a conclasion occurring 
in it twice? Is not the force of the conclusion there- 
by doubled? I will maintain "Pugnis et calcibus, 
unguibus et rostro*' as our hero is sometimes dis* 
posed to do, [vide force bill] that both premises and 
conclusion are strictly legitimate. But, asks a fe- 
male nullifier at my elbow, has not the General re- 
tracted? What a monstrous conception! No — he 
may have graciously condescended to muffle his 
thunder in mercy to our weak nerves, for which we 
should be humbly grateful; but iie cannot have 
changed, for the constitution is still unchanged, and 
it is his sworn duty to preserve it; legislation can do 
nothing unless the Constitution is changed, as has 
been already proved. 

It has also been objected by the foes to order and 
regular government that the President has lent 
some two or three millions of the public money on his 
own responsibility, without interest, while he has per- 
mitted the Post Office Department to borrow large- 
ly at 6 per cent per annum!— granted, that the facts 
are precisely as stated, nay I acknowledge them to 
be so— snd moreover that Congress had made no 
appropriation by which they might be drawn. 
Well, sirs* does not the constitution give the ripht 
of custody, and is not the right of use clearly im- 
plied; read the tale of a tub mv friends; 1 pledge 
myself that I wiU deduce the right of use as clearly 
from the constitution as the President has done the 
right of custody. If I cannot find it, totidem ver- 
bis; I can find it totidem syllabis, or totidem Uteris. 
The President ia sworn to protect the constitution; 
the constitution could be protected only by demol- 
ishing aristocratic institutions; these institutions 
could be isemoiiahed only by lending out the pub- 



106 



THE EXAMINER, 



Ke money ; the public money could be lent out only 
on the Hero's responsibility; Ergo, the Hero wm 
forced to defend the constitution by lending the 
money ; there is a sorites for Nullifiers. Congress 
ought to have made the appropriation. What 
then has the General done? he has only outstripped 
Congress in the march of patriotism, and the Se- 
nate are mortified at his superior sagacity. The end 
sanctifies the means; did he not "dispense blessings 
on his citizens like the dews of heaven' 9 in form of 
contracts and extras, producing "freshness and 
beauty" in the friends of Van Buren? has he not 
hitherto been "sustained by the almighty" in his 
glorious course and could that course, which the al- 
mighty sustained, be other than virtuous? Is not 
his sole ambition 'to acquit himself to him' to whom 
alone, in my humble opinion, great men ought to 
be accountable? Read the protest; it is a mine of 
wisdom and piety; of the argumentative part I have 
given you a sample; but when he approaches the 
peroration, he is really great; when he describes the 
dangers with which we are threatened by the usur- 
pations of the Senate, you tremble; but when in 
strains aa dulcet as the cooing of a turtle, he speaks 
of the scars, vainly borne on his person, (I wish Ben- 
ton bad made none of them) "the enduring memo- 
rials of that contest in which American liberty was 
purchased;" of his subsequent "perils of life, pro- 
perty and lame" (which he always held cheap as 
even his enemies must admit,) of "the responsibili- 
ties and dangers he encountered without personal 
aspiration," of "hi* grey hairs, his decaying frame, 
his contemplation of other worlds," "and all that," 
you melt over the picture. I sobbed audibly I as- 
sure you; then his piety is awful; but his patriotism 
is above all praise. When he condescends to sketch 
the beauties of the government he intends to be- 
queath us "dispensing its blessings like the dews 
of heaven, unseen and onfelt, save in the freshness 
and beauty they contribute to produce," you are 
entranced by the contemplation, it is the quintes- 
sence of poetry, pathos, and patriotism pushed into 
a political protest; think of that Messrs. Editors; 
the poetry of a protest; don t sneer or talk to me out 
of Horace about dolphins in a grove or cypress trees 
in the Ocean. I have seen with admiration a por- 
tion of Coke on Littleton, turned into verse, why 
not then poetry in a protest. 1 tell you sirs, that if 
after all this the American people should refuse him 
the custody of the deposites, the privilege of bor- 
rowing and lending money on their account, but 
above all the right of destroying all political mon- 
sters, whether in the shape of banks or Senates, why 
I will say their hearts are not made of penetrable 
stuff. PALFURiUS. 



PHILADELPHIA: 

Wednesday, October 29, 1834. 



The following is a copy of a letter received by 
us, from a respectable correspondent: 

Petersburg, Sept. 27th, 1834. 

Dear Sir: — 1 was somewhat surprised, and much 
regretted the unexpected discontinuance of the 
Examiner. I took it for granted, that until the 
editor received a notice to stop it, it would of course 
be regularly transmitted. I should think tbat it 
would materially affect the subscription list, unless 
the agents were uncommonly attentive and active 
in procuring a renewal of the names. I have not 
been spoken to, and the sudden withdrawal of the 
paper, was left inexplicable. Valuing as I do, the 
political character of the Examiner, and being al- 



ways ready and willing to pay the subscription 
when applied to, I hope that you will promptly send 
the back numbers for the second year, and continue 
it as before. 

We have not a doubt that we have lost thousands 
of subscribers, from the cause above assigned by 
our correspondent, but upon what ground could we 
have undertaken to send the second volume to any 
individual, without his express directions, after hsv 
ing obtained his subscription, upon the condition 
contained in the following article of the Prospectus, 
published repeatedly throughout the year? 

Each remittance will be considered as a distinct 
transaction, and every subscription will be discon- 
tinued at the end of the year paid for, unless renew* 
edby a second payment. By this means, subscribers 
may withdraw, without incurring the expense of 
postage in giving notice of withdrawal, and the 
trouble of furnishing receipts will be avoided, inas- 
much as the trantmissian of the paper , will be of 
itself evidence of Us having been paid for. 

It was not possible for us, under the circumstances 
of the case, to have acted in any other way than the 
one in which we did; and if any gentleman has con- 
strued into a personal slight, a measure which we 
considered ourselves under obligation to adopt in 
good faith towards him, we sincerely regret it. 

We now take occasion to remark, that there are 
four thousand subscribers to the first volume of the 
Examiner, who have not transmitted their names for 
the second. Of the back numbers of the second 
volume, we have on hand only about 700 copies, 
which will be sent to those who first apply, whether 
new subscribers or old ones. 

From South Carolina we have not complete re- 
turns. The State Rights ticket has carried in Charles- 
ton, and in roost of the Congressional Districts. 

The Abolition Cause Reviving. — Since the riots 
which took place in N. York and this city, in July and 
August last, growing outof the measures of the Aboli- 
tionists, we would have been led to suppose that the 
matter had been put, for a time at least, at rest. It 
is with regret, therefore, that we notice the circum- 
stance recorded in the following article, taken from 
the Boston Commercial Gazette, of a recent date: 

* We understand that a committee of the religious 
society worshipping at the Unitarian Church, in 
Federal street, has been appointed to request of 
Dr. Channing, a copy of the Sermon which he de- 
livered on Sunday last, for the purpose of having 
it printed. It is stated, that among other subjects 
discussed in this Sermon, was that of Slavery, and 
that the reverend gentleman took a decided stand in 
favour of the abolition of the slaves of the South." 

In addition to this, we notice the following article 
in the National Gazette: — 

Excitxmxhts at THi East. — We learn from the 
Eastern papers, that considerable excitement exists at 
Augusta, Maine, in consequence of an anti-slavery 
convention, which is to be held in that town this 
week, 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



107 



The Late Elections. — The following u the result, 
as far as known. 

In Pennsylvania, the Jackson party has elected 
seventeen members of Congress, and the Anti-Jack- 
son party eleven-, which gives the former one more 
member than it bad in the last Congress. The Jack- 
son party baa also elected a majority of the members 
of the Legislature, so that at the ensuing session, a 
Senator of the same political character will be elect- 
ed to supply the place of Mr. Wilkins, who has 
gone to Russia. 

In Connecticut, the Anti-Jackson party has suc- 
ceeded in the choice of three members of Congress, 
by a majority of about 300. 

In Vermont, the Anti-Jackson party has also suc- 
ceeded. 

In New Jersey, the Jackson party has succeeded 
by upwards of 1100 majority in the -choice of six 
members of Congress, It has also elected a majo- 
rity of the members of the House of Representatives 
so as to give upon joint ballot, a majority of 8 .or 10 
votes. 

In Georgia, the Jackson party has succeeded in 
the election of the entire Congressional ticket of 
nine members, but the precise majority we cannot 
give in this paper. 

From Ohiosufficient returns have not yet reached 
us to enable us to judge of the issue. In Muskin- 
gum County, it is stated, that "four States Rights 
men and three others, more than half way," have 
received a large majority of the votes for different 
offices, showing an advance of sound doctrine in 
that section of Ohio, of the most cheering charac- 
ter. 

The American System. — It is stated in the New 
York papers, that at a late meeting of the Ameri- 
can Institute of that city, Judge Baldwin made a 
speech, in which he pourtrayed the advantages 
which tbe country had derived from the American 
System. Tbe philosophers of that school are hank- 
ering after the glorious days of restriction, and there 
cannot be a doubt, that as soon as the annual reduc- 
tion of duties shsll have reached the point at which 
the protected manufacturers begin seriously to feel 
the effects of the compromise bill, they will begin to 
cry out again for a restoration of their monopolies 

Judge Duval. — It is reported that this aged gen- 
tleman is about to resign his seat on the bench of 
tbe Supreme Court If thia be true, there will be 
two vacancies to be supplied st the next session of 
Congress, the one occasioned by the death of Judge 
Johnson, still existing. Had Mr. Jackson been at 
the time of his first election, and continued up to 
this time, a true State Rights man, be would have 
effected, in the course of his administration, a 
radical change in the political complexion of that 
Court, through the two appointments heretofore, 
and the two hereafter to be made. 



Free Trade, — Restrictive laws are every day giv- 
ing way throughout the world. A fresh example is 
to be found in the following fact, recorded in the 
daily papers; 

«• We learn from the Montreal papers that the 
British Government has given a decision in favor of 
allowing American Beef and Pork, salted, to be ex- 
ported from the Canadian ports to other British 
ports, duty free. This will enable the West Indies 
to obtain their articles of provisions at much cheap- 
er rates than heretofore. The consequence of this 
decision will be, to create a more extensive demand 
for Beef and Pork, from New York, Pennsylvania, 
Ohio, and Michigan, in the Montreal and Quebec 
markets." 



Importance of Political Parties.— Under every 
government, whether its form be monarchical or 
democratic, there wilL always be two parties, one 
in favour of enlarging the powers of the government, 
and the other in favour of restricting them. There 
never can be one psrty only, for it is not possible, 
that all the subjects or citizens of any kingdom or 
state can precisely agree as to the exact point at 
which power should be limited, and if they differ 
but a hair's breadth that very difference creates 
two parties. It is evident however, that in arbi- 
trary governments the parties are further asunder 
from each other, than they are in limited govern- 
ments, and hence the struggles between the two, 
when they take place, are more violent in the 
former than in the latter. 

The existence of parties therefore, arises from the 
nature of things, and so long as they are governed 
by principle, so long they are beneficial to the State. 
By being governed by principle we mean a consistent 
adherence to the doctrines respectively advocated 
by each. We mean that the advocate of power 
•whether he be called monarchist, aristocrat,. feder- 
alist, or tory, should always be in favour of strength- 
ening the government, and that the advocate of 
limitation, whether called republican, democrat, an- 
ti-federalist, or whig, should always be in favour of 
restricting the power of government. When this 
is.the case, the contest between the parties cannot 
but ultimately result in the establishment of the 
government upon thst middle ground upon which 
safety is perhaps most usually to be found; for each 
of the combatants by closely watching the other can 
prevent that wide aberration from the standard 
which might lead, on the one hand to despotism, 
or, on the other, to anarchy. 

Tbe case is widely different where the parties 
are not governed by any principle, and where the 
aristocrat of to»day, is a democrat to-morrow, and 
where the whig of to day is a tory to-morrow; or, 
what is the same thing, where an usurpation exer- 
cised by one department of the government is 
condemned, whilst if exercised by another de- 
partment of the same government it is approved, 
and vice versa. Any one can at once perceive that 
parties founded upon such an unstable basis, can 



108 



THE EXAMINER, 



produce no good, for thev must have their origin in 
ignorance, prejudice or corruption. 

Such unhappily ia the actual' condition of parties 
in the United Statea. The federal party which has, 
from the foundation of the government used all ita 
influence to strengthen the arm of the government, 
in its legislative and judicial departments, is now 
vociferous against the executive department for do- 
ing that which it would not have dared to have 
done, had it not been for the encouragement so 
uniformly afforded by the federal party ,to the equal- 
ly high handed usurpation of Congress. And on 
the other hand a large portion of the democratic 
party, which has always advocated a strict construc- 
tion of the federal constitution is now clamorous in fa- 
vour of a stretch of power by the Executive, quite as 
subversive of the liberties of the country, as any 
thing practiced by Congress or the Supreme 
Court. Thus the whigs have turned tones, and 
the tories have turned whigs, and what is more, if 
the immediate cause of their present change of 
sides was removed, they would both turn back 
again, to their old position*. - ' * 

In the midst, however, of this glorious metee, 
there exist two remnants, one belonging to the 
tories and one to the whtgs,who remain true to* their 
principles. We allude to that firm and tried band of 
consistent federalists, who always stood up most 
manfully for power, who have advocated the usurpa- 
tions of Congress and the Supreme Court, and who 
now resolutely adhere to Mr. Jackson's usurpations, 
as being all of a piece. The other is the State Remedy 
party, who have always opposed a latitudinarian 
construction of the power, of the federal govern* 
ment, and who have proved their consistency and 
devotion to principle, by an uniform condemnation of 
all usurped authority whether exercised by Con- 
gress, the Supreme Court, or the Executive. The 
former are the only uniform tories, the latter the only 
uniform whigs, and upon the doctrines they respec- 
tively maintain, must future political contests take 
place, as soon as one of the present rival parties 
gets cured of its devotion to the bank, and the 
other of its devotion to Jacksonism. 

European Ignorance of America* Poiiiic* — The 
English and French papers, which reached this 
country, pending the South Carolina controversy, 
were pretty fully occupied with comments upon 
American affairs. The advocates of arbitrary and 
strong governments greatly rejoiced at what they 
supposed to be a proximate dissolution of our union, 
which obliged the admirers of our political system 
to argue, either that the danger was over-rated; or, 
that if a breaking up of the confederacy were to be 
the result, it would not tend to the overthrow of 
republican government. There was, however, ob- 
serveable in nearly all these comments, a total want 
of acquaintance with the true nature of the contest, 
which led the liberate to take aides with the Federal 
government, and to lose sight entirely of the fact, 



that South Carolina was contending for liberty, by 
asserting her rights as a sovereign State. An igno- 
rance of the peculiar features of our federative gov- 
ernment, prevents the European writers from per- 
ceiving the distinction between an insurrection 
against the laws, by a combination of individuals, 
and an opposition to the exercise of unauthorized 
power, by the supreme authority of a State. In the 
one case nobody doubts the right of the federal 
government to use military force, to put down the 
insurgents, as was done in the case of 'the whiskey 
insurrection in Pennsylvania, but in the other case, 
there appears in die Constitution no authority for it 
whatever. 

It may then be asked, how did it happen that the 
European editors were so badly informed on this 
subject? The answer is plain enough. They ob- 
tained ninety-nine hundreih parts of their intelli- 
gence from America, as they always do, through 
tfce papers of Boston, New tork, Philadelphia, sod 
Baltimore, in neither of which cities was there at 
the time a single daily paper which published a fair 
statement of the controversy, or advocated the State 
Rights doctrines. The Democratic and Federal,' 
Jackson snd Anti-Jaekson papers jvere all on one 
side, and that side, the one which denied the right 
of a State to protect her citizens against Federal 
oppression, and with such unanimity before them, 
how could foreigners understand the merits of the 
matter 4n dispute? Nearly all the papers which 
took the republican side of the controversy, were 
published in the Southern States, and mostly too in 
the country. These papers did not reach the Euro- 
pean editors, or if very few of them did, they were 
not as fresh as the northern papers, snd they were 
consequently not read with the same interest 

It is painful for the friends of liberty in this coun- 
try, tp see their fellow labourers in Europe, rest un- 
der the belief, that measures originating, in an ar- 
dent devotion to the inalienable rights of man have 
been produced by a spirit of rebellion against the 
constitutional authority of the government They 
cannot however iogg remain under this delusive im- 
pression* The restoration of harmony between the 
North and South will dissipate their fears on that 
head, and they will ultimately be able to perceive, 
that the only danger of the overthrow of a republican 
form of government in the United States, is from 
the usurpations of the federal government, and never 
from the right of interposition on the part of a State; 
which right, if it did not exist, would convert our 
agency at Washington, into a government of an irre- 
sponsible majority without limitation of powers, that 
would become in time, a government more hideous 
in its form, than any despotism of the old World. 

. The Future Collection of the Beverme.^Tha recent 
elections have settled to the conviction of every 
mind that was not satisfied before, that the charter 
of the present bank of the United States cannot be 
renewed. With the known opinions of Mr. Jack- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



109 



son, there has not been for yens the slightest 
ground for anticipating a renewal, unless the next 
Congress should hare contained two-thirds in its 
favour, and that being now set at rest by the result 
alluded to, the question ought to be looked upon 
by the friends of the Bank, as well as by its foes, to 
be conclusively and forever settled. This being 
the ease, the managers of that institution, are now 
bound to take steps for winding up its affairs, and 
at the interests of the Bank as. well as of the com- 
munity require that the operation should be accom- 
plished with as little public suffering as possible, 
we doubt not that such measures will be pursued 
as will give general satisfaction. The statement of 
its affairs, published in this day's paper, shows toe 
advantageous position it occupies for closing R* 
concerns, for it there appears, that the specie in its 
vaults, its acceptances running to maturity, and oth- 
er available fund*, are nearly equal to all claims ex- 
isting against it, in the form of notes in circulation, 
deposites, &c. leaving the amount of its loans on 
promissory notes, bank stock, and other securities, 
very little more than the amount of its capital. Now 
it is manifest that if the Bank should adept the plan 
of dividing its capital amongst its stockholders as fast 
as ten or twenty per cent, is collected, there will 
be no great abstraction of money from circufetien, 
and should the process extend over a number of 
years, under a deed of trust, the influence of the 
winding up would scarcely be felt 

This question then, beiog disposed of, the next 
subject which demands the public attention is, a 
permanent plan for collecting the revenue. Upon 
this matter, the public mind will be divided, and 
at the next session of Congress, a number of diner. 
eat schemes will no doubt be brought forward, each 
supported by a strong party. 

One party wiUadrocate the creation of a new fe- 
deral bank; 

Another will advocate the league of State banks, 
now in the employment of the Government. 

A third wiU/advocate no bank at all, hut will 
stand; up for the hard money plan, by which the 
revenue shall be collected in gold and silver, accor- 
ding to what we hawe understood to be the provi- 
sions of a bill brought forward last winter in Con- 
gress by Gen. Gordon, of Virginia. 

Of those three plans we shall be the advocate of 
the last one. We believe a federal Bank to be un- 
constitutional, snd shall therefore oppose it. We 
believe the tendency of a league of State Banks is 
to corrupt the Government and the people, and we 
shall therefore oppose it. But as we believe itio 
be both constitutional and practicable to collect the 
revenue in coin, without the intervention of banks 
of any soft, we shall endeavour to urge the adop- 
tion of a plan that shall have that for its object.— 
Our own particular views on this subject, we shall 
bring forward in our next paper, and in the mean- 
time, will enquire, where is the patriot, who has 
witnessed the transactions of the past year, that 



does not from his heart desire to see the federal go- 
vernment wholly divorced from the banking sys- 
tem? and who will not lend his aid in accomplishing 
that result, if he shall be convinced of its feasibility? 

The Gold Coinage again.-— In a former article on 
this subject, we stated that the discovery of Gold 
in our southern states, and the gradually increasing 
production of that metal since the yesr 1824* had 
occasioned an influence to be exercised upon Con- 
gress, to which might be ascribed in a great degree 
the passage of the recent law, changing the relative 
value of gold and silver, from 1 to 15 to 1 to 16 and 
a fraction. In that article we also stated, that by 
this change the owners of the gold mines would 
derive no benefit beyond that resulting from the 
trifling increase in the value of gold which would 
he experienced throughout the commercial world, 
owing to the increased demand for the currency of 
the United States. We proceed now to prove that 
position, believing that as much error is prevalent 
on that subject at the south, as there exists at the 
north in reference to the benefits resulting from le- 
gislative interference with the domestic production 
of iron. 

The common notion prevailing, and that which 
has been most extensively urged by those who have 
made the gold coinage a party question, is, that the 
producers of gold are now enabled to get 6 2-3 per 
cent.* more for their gold, than they used to get un- 
der the old law, seeing that 232 grains of pure gold 
are npw declared to be the equivalent of ten dollars, 
whereas under the old law, 247 1-2 grains were the 
equivalent of that sum. This assertion would have 
been true, had the old law prohibited the produc- 
ers of gold from receiving for their gold more than 
ten dollars for every 247 1-2 grains; but this was 
not the case. From the very first moment that gold 
made its appearance in North Carolina up to the 
present time, it has commanded a price in the mar- 
ket above the mint price; that is, one ounce of gold 
has exchanged for more than fifteen ounces of sil- 
ver, 'or, what is the same thing, 2474 grains of pure 
gold have been exchanged tor more than ten dol- 
lars. We have no official data to refer to, by which 
we can ascertain precisely the price at which gold 
has been sold at different periods at the different 
mines, but it is fair to presume, that it was as near 
to the Philadelphia market price as it is now, and 
as it will hereafter be. If then we can ascertain what 
has been the Philadelphia market price since the 
year 1824, we shall be able to throw some light on 
this subject, for let it be remembered, that whatev- 
er that price has been, it has gone into the pockets 
of the producers of gold, deducting the expense of 
transportation to Philadelphia, where the mint is lo- 
cated — an expense which must be borne by them 
hereafter, as heretofore. Fortunately upon this 
point we have evidence that no one will dispute, 

* The precise per eentage is 6,681, whieh it a fraction 
more than 6 3-& 



no 



THE EXAMINER, 



for, as it comes from a strong advocate of the Gold 
BiH, it cannot be suspected of unfairness. 
From the Washington Globe. 
The following statement of actual sales, made by 
the United States Bank, will show how she has sold 
foreign gold: 



Qeitteas. 


Sovereign*. 


Portuguese Gold. 


. per cent 


percent 


percent. 


Jan. 5, 1828, 9 1*2 


10 


6 1-2 


Jan. 3, 1829, 8 1-4 


8 5-8 


5 1-2 


Jan. 2, 1830, 7 3-4 


8 3-4 


41-2 


Jan. 4, 1831, 5 1-4 


6 1-8 


3 


Jan. 4, 1832, 8 34 


8 3-4 


5 1-2 


Jan. 3, 1833, 7 


7 


3 1-4 



These are a few only out of thousands of sales 
made by the Bank of the United States. They go 
as high as 10 per cent. 

Here then we see it shown that foreign gold has 
been sold by the Bank of the United States, at the 
periods mentioned, at s premiimi varying from 3 to 
10 per cent. The reason why British gold sold 
higher than Portuguese gold, which is of the same 
standard (22 carats fine, that is, 11 parts pure metal 
to 1 part alloy) is, that Guineas and Sovereigns are 
cash immediately on their arrival in England, even 
though somewhat lighter than full weight, whereas 
Portuguese gold would be available only as bullion. 
Now as American gold coin at the periods referred 
to were of the same standard as the Portuguese, and 
like them only available in foreign countries as bul- 
lion, it is fair to presume that the price of American 
gold was in the Philadelphia market the same as 
that of the Portuguese. 

It would then appear that American gold was 
worth in Philadelphia from 1828 to 1833, a premi- 
um varying from 3 to 6 1-2 per cent, or upon an 
average a fraction above 4 1-2 per cent. In other 
words, we see that one ounce of gold has uniformly 
been sold for more thin fifteen ounces of silver, and 
in one case for rtry near tixteen ounces. Now it 
must be apparent that unless the producer of gold 
gets for his commodity at the mint 62-3 and a frac- 
tion per cent, more than he used to get in the mar- 
ket, he is not a gainer by the change to the extent 
asserted. But the new mint price is only 6,681 per 
cent, more than the old mint price* while the price 
in the market upon the average of years quoted, 
was 4 J per cent, more, and of consequence the real 
advantage to the producer of gold cannot possibly 
have been more than 2,181 per cent, that being the 
difference between the two rates of premium. 

It is not an answer to these positions to say, that 
the price of gold in the market since October, 1833, 
in consequence of the derangement of commerce 
and the currency by Mr. Jackson's intermeddling 
with matters that he did not understand, has been 
as low at times, as four, three, two or one per cent, 
and even less, and thus the benefit to the producer 
of gold is consequently equal to the difference be- 
tween those rates snd 6,681 per cent. A tempora- 
ry and unnatural state of things, is not a basis for 
sound conclusions, and cannot therefore be admit- 
ted into a discussion of general principles. 



It would appear however, that although the gain 
to the producers of gold by the new law was not at 
much as has been alleged, yet that upon our own 
admission, it was equal to 2,181 per cent. In other 
words it would appear, as if the mint afforded a 
constant market at a steady price, 2 per cent, and 
a fraction higher than used to be obtained in the 
market under the old law. Let us examine mi- 
nutely into this, and see how the fact is. 

The old mint price of pure gold was $19,39, 4*10 
cents per ounce of 480 grains, as maybe ascertained 
from the fact that 2474 grams, [the weight of pure 
gold in an eagle of the old coinage] was the equiv- 
alent by law of 10 dollars. 9 The market price there- 
fore, of pure gold between the years 1828 and 1833 
at 4 1-2 per cent, premium was #20,26, 6-10 cents 
per ounce, which was consequently ,the price that 
the producer of gold used to get for his commodity 
in the Philadelphia market. 

The neat mint price of pure gold is $20,69 cents 
per ounce of 480 grsins, as may be ascertained from 
the fact that 232 grains, [the weight of pure gold 
in sn eagle of the new coinage] is the equivalent by 
law of 10 dollars.f 

The difference between these two prices is 43 
cents and 4-10ths of a cent per ounce, which is 
equal to 2 per cent and a fraction, and it thus still 
appear* that the present mint price is that much 
higher than the old market price, and consequent- 
ly that the producer of gold gains 2 dollars and a 
fraction on tvtry 100 dollars by the new propor- 
tion. 

We say it appear* so, and for the simple reason 
that the fact in reality is not so. To prove this, we 
must ascertain whether the 20 dollars 69 cents spo- 
ken of as the present price of an ounce of pure 
gold, are the same kind of dollars as those spoken 
o& where $20,26, 6-10 are stated to have been the 
price of pure gold under the old law. For it must 
be very evident that the term dollar is in itself no 
sign of fixed quantity or value, and that as quanti- 
ties and values are the things regarded in aM sales 
and purchases, and not mere denominations, it ie 
absolutely necessary that this point should be de- 
termined before any correct opinion can be formed. 
* Under the old law, a dollar was represented by a 
silver coin containing 416 grains of standard silver, 
or, by 24 grains and 75-100 of a grain of pure gold, 
that being the tenth psrt of the quantity of pure 
gold, contained in an eagle of the old coinage. 

A dollar under the new law is represented also by 
416 grains of standard silver, or, by 23 grains and 
20-100 of a grain of pure gold, that being the tenth 
part of the quantity of pure gold contained in an 
eagle of the new coinage. 

It thus appears that the dollar spoken of at the 
two different periods, contains the same quantity ef 
silver, but a different quantity of gold, and it is 

* If 847A grains are equal to $10, 480 grains are equal 
to $19,30,4. 

t If 2S2 grains are equal to $10, 480 graios are equal 
to $«Q,«9. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



Ill 



therefore evident that the producer of gold, when 
he sells one ounce of that metal for silver coins, 
gets 2 per cent, and a fraction more than he used 
to get, but when he sells it for gold coins, be gets 
only the same quantity of gold that he used to get. 
For, in the first case, he gets for his ounce 20 dol- 
lars 69-100 of a dollar, each weighing 416 grains 
standard silver, that is 8607 grains, instead of 20 
dollars and 26-100 of a dollar and a fraction, that is 
8430 grain* standard silver, the price he used to 
get; and in the second case he gets for his ounce a 
number of gold coins of a particular weight, and 
standard, which contain 480 grains of pure gold 
(that being what the mint is obliged to give for an 
ounce of pure gold) instead of a number of gold 
coins of a different weight and standard, but con- 
taining precisely the same number,tbat is, 480 grains 
of pure gold, which he could have received at the 
mint, had he taken it there, in preference to sel- 
ling his gold in the market. 
But it may be said, that although this be true, that 
U, although it be true that the producer of gold can 
get no more pure gold in coin for an ounce of pure 
gold in bullion, under the new law, than he used to 
get under the old law, yet that with his 480 grains 
of pure gold in coin, received at the mint for one 
ounce of pure gold, he can procure from the banks 
or from individuals, 8607 grains of standard silver, 
so that it amounts to the same thing whether he 
•ells his ounce of metal for gold or silver. This 
would be true unquestionably, if the fact were as 
supposed that 8607 grains of standard silver could 
be permanently purchased for 480 grains of pure 
gold. That it can be thus purchased, at this time, 
will not be denied, but that it can permanently re- 
main procurable at that rate, is not admitted. It is 
not possible for two metals, long to circulate inter- 
changeably at a legal equivalency, if there be not at 
the same time, a market equivalency. The dearer 
one will inevitably be exported whenever the course 
of trade leads to the exportation of coin, leaving the 
cheaper one to supply the channels of circulation. 
Thus in the case before us, whenever exchange 
shall rise so high as to render it more profitable for 
an importing merchant to export bullion than to 
buy a bill, he will export silver, as being more val- 
uable abroad, in consequence of its being underval- 
ued at home, and on the other hand, whenever the 
course of trade invites the importation of bullion, 
gold will be imported, because it is over- valued by 
our laws. Nothing indeed can prevent in process 
of time the complete draining of the country of all 
its large silver coins of full weight under the present 
law, if the relative value of gold and silver in the 
market of the trading world, should continue the 
same as it now is, or fall back towards the old pro- 
portion of 1 to 15. 

A gold standard then instead of a silver one, may 
be fairly considered as the one which must ultimate- 
ly prevail in the United States, and consequently 



the gold dollar of 23 2-10 grains of fine gold, and 
not the silver dollar of 416 grains standard silver 
will be the money of account, and the coin in which 
bank notes will be payable. When this state of 
things then arrives, what will the producer of gold 
in the 8outhern States have gained by the change 
in the relative value of gold and silver? Positively 
nothing. He will not be enabled to exchange an 
ounce of gold for any more commodities than he 
used to do before the alteration of the coinage.— 
When people sell goods for gold, they sell them 
for specific quantities of gold, and not for the jingle 
it will make, or, for any title it may bear. If a law 
were to declare that a dollar, instead of containing 
416 grains of standard silver, should contain but half 
the quantity, that is, 208 grains, and should be a le- 
gal tender at that weight, the consequence would 
be, that every man who had an article for sale worth 
one dollar before the enactment of the law, would 
refuse to sell it for less than two dollars. The same 
would be the case, whatever the diminution of 
weight might be. If 5 per cent, were deducted 
from the weight of coins, all commodities would rise 
in price 5 per cent Nobody would gain by the 
change, except the class of debtor* owing money 
at the time, and nobody would lose, but the class of 
creditors, the former by being enabled to discharge 
a debt with less metal than they had contracted to* 
pay, and the latter by being compelled to accept it. 
But all new contracts and engagements would have- 
reference to the new coins, which would possess si 
value precisely in proportion to the quantity of pure 
metal contained in them. 

It may however be thought that during the time 
which must elapse before the standard is changed 
from silver to gold, by the expulsion of the snVer, 
the producer of gold would be benefitted to the ex- 
tent of two per cent, and a fraction, by his ability 
to obtain 8607 grains of standard silver for an ounce 
of pure gold. But this is not so, for the effect of 
the law is to depredate the value of the silver down 
to the level of the gold, for, let it be remembered, 
that to increase the price of gold, which was the de- 
sign of the gold bill, is to d$crea*e the price of silver*. 
The law which says, that a number of gold coins 
which contain one ounce of pure gold, shall pass 
for no more than the number of silver coins that 
contain 8607 grains of standard silver, at the same 
time declares, that the number of silver coins which 
contain 8607 grains of standard silver shall pass for 
no more than the number of gold coins that contain 
one ounce of pure gold. So long therefore, as the 
two metals circulate interchangeably, the one pos- 
sesses no more value in exchange, than the other, 
and consequently, a number of coins containing 
8607 grains of standard silver, will purchase no 
more than a number of coins containing one ounce 
of pure gold. It is only for exportation, that the 
silver would possess the superior value referred to, 
and this superior value would benefit only the ex? 



119 



THE EXAMINER, Ac. 



porting 1 merchant, and not the producer of gold. It 
is tree, however, that after silver should have be- 
come scarce, it would command a premium in the 
market, as gold used to do, in which case 8607 
grains of standard silver would no longer be pro- 
cureable for one ounce of pure gold, and consequent- 
ly the producer of gold, would not have even the 
shadow of a benefit from the change. 

la there then no advantage to result to the South- 
ern producers of gold, from the operation of the 
measures of the great alchymtsts who have brought 
back the golden age? We reply, none whatever, 
except that trifling and almost inappreciable one to 
which we adverted at the commencement of this 
article, arising from the fact, that a new demand for 
gold has been created by its adoption as the Ameri- 
can standard. What this will amount to must be 
conjectural, but we should suppose, when we ad- 
vert to the actual stock of gold coin and bullion now 
in existence in Europe,Aaia, Africa, North and South 
America, the accumulation of centuries, that the de- 
mand for the American market can have no perceptible 
influence in raising the value of the whole mass.—- 
Whatever that rise may be, however, it will go 
to the benefit of the domestic producer of gold, but 
that is all he will derive from a measure fraught 
with infinite mischief to the country, and accompa- 
nied by a breach of the public faith. We shall re- 
sume this subject hereafter, and show how utterly 
futile the measure has been, as a means of breaking 
up the paper system. 



After writing the foregoing article, we were fur- 
nished by a respectable broker of this city, with a 
statement of the price of American gold, during the 
years for which we have above given the prices of 
foreign gold, which is as follows: 

Buying Price. Selling Price, 

per cent. prem. per cent. prem. 

1828, Jan. 19, 5 to 5 1-2 7 

1829, « 1, 5to<> 6 1-2 

1830, « 1, 3 1-2 to 4 1-2 5 

1831, « 1, 2 1-2 to 3 4 to 5 

1832, « 13, 2 1-2 3 1-2 

An average of these rates is 3 3-4 for the buying 
price, and 5 per cent, for the selling price, giving 
a medium of 4 3-8 per cent, which is sufficiently 
near to 4 1-2 per cent, for our purposes. 

The following article from a Georgia paper, so 
strongly corroborates our views, that we take occa- 
sion to copy it verbatim, although we think the wri- 
ter is in error, in supposing that the paper system is 
in any danger of being overthrown, by the measure 
referred to. 

. From the Athene-Banner. 

7%e Gold jBtf/.— It is properthat the public should 
be informed that some of the statements recently 
published in regard to the increased value of gold, 
caused by the passage of that admirable bill to raise 
its legal value, suggested and urged forward by the 
present admiohrtration, are not founded in a strict 



regard for truth. Gold coin is said to be advanced 
6 2-3 per cent. This is true, calculating the present 
relationship of gold and silver as 1 to 15. But it is 
thought the general impression in this matter is er- 
roneous, and that the real proportion has always 
been as 1 to 15 11-27. In that case the le^al value 
of gold will not be advanced by the new bill quite 
4 per cent. Be this as it may, we have seen an 
evident design to deceive the people in another re- 
spect, by inducing them to believe that gold, ae 
dug from the minis, will be worth 102 cents per pen- 
nyweight. This is not true. 

Pure gold is worth at the mint, 96 24-25 cents per 
pennyweight, but this rate being less than its value 
in other countries, it has generally been exported 
as bullion, commanding a premium above this price, 
from 1-2 to 7 per cent, averaging, say, 3 1-2 per ct. 
making pure gold worth a little less than 100 1-2 
cents per pennyweight. Now, the gold, in the state 
it is first collected and sold, is not pure, but will 
lose in becoming so, from 5 to 6 cents on each pen- 
nyweight, making it really worth in the northern 
market, about 95 cents. The new bill can only 
raise its legal value, upon which no premium can be 
expected; and will now be worth, pure, 102 or 103 
cents per pennyweight, which will make it worth in 
its native state, 97 or 98 cents on an average. These 
calculations are made upon the best authority, and 
estimating the native gold as of that kind supposed 
22 carats fine and upwards. The miner will observe, 
therefore, that be will only get 2 or 3 cents per 
pennyweight for the precious metal, more than for- 
merly. 

The great object to be accomplished by this bill, 
however, is to bring gold coin into general circula- 
tion, and to do away the pernicious effects of a too 
abundant paper currency. The honest holder of a> 
few dollars will npt now be liable to lose his little 
cash by Bank failures, produced by villainous frauds 
in high life, 'this money will be safe, and he can 
lay it by for his needful purposes, and be always sure 
that when he wishes to use it, it will neither be 
worthless nor depreciated. 



Regulation of the Currency.— Mr. Webster m his 
speech in the Senate on the 20th of January, upon 
the subject of the Bank, asked this question, "How 
are we to exercise that salutary control over the na- 
tional currency, which it was the unquestionable pur- 
pose of the Constitution to devolve on Congress?" 
Upon turning to the Constitution we could find no 
part of it which placed the national currency under 
the regulation of Congress except the fallowing — 

Congress shall have power u to coin money, regu- 
late the value thereof, and of foreign coins, and fix 
the standard of weights and measures." 

If this be the. passage referred to, it appears to us 
that Congress nas no more authority under it to re- 
gulate the currency, excepting that portion of it 
which consists of coin, than it has to regulate the 
emission of promissory notes by individuals. 

If the power to regulate the currency be inferred 
as incidental to the power of requiring that " all 
duties, imports and excises, shall be uniform 
throughout the United States," then we say, that 
this can be best effected by requiring the revenue 
of the government to be paid in coin, the value of 
which has been regulated by Congress. 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 

Tbe Powers not Delegated to the United State*, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the 

States respectively, or to the People Amendments to the Constitution, Art. X. 

Freedom ef Industry, as sacred as freedom of speech or of tbe press. . Jefferson. 



Vol. II.] 



Wednesday, November 12, 1834. 



[No. 8. 



AN EXPOSITION 
Of the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, in a series of 
Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distin- 
guished citizen of Virginia, under the signature of 
•'LocjcV' in February, 1833. 
No. V. 

You will be pleased to bear in mind, sir, that I 
hare endeavoured, in my preceding letters, simply 
to prove, that the doctrine of Nullification is fully 
warranted by the Virginia Resolutions, of 1798. If 
I have not succeeded in this, I have at least shown 
that it is not so manifest a departure from those re- 
solutions, ss to warrant the denunciation which it 
has received from the professed friends of State 
Rights. Still less warrant is there, for branding a 
whole State with treason, for adopting it. And 
now, sir, permit me to remark, that Nullification is 
not a distinct and substantive principle at all, hut 
merely a mode in which well settled principles are car- 
ried out in practice. It is absolutely necessary to bear 
this distinction in mind. The only principle involv- 
ed in Nullification, is the tight of a State to decide 
whether an act of Congress is a breach of the com- 
pact or not; and if it shall decide that it is a breach, 
to interpose without waiting for the co-operation of 
other States, for "arresting the progress of the evil," 
in such mode as not to break the Union, nor interrupt 
the regular progress of the Government within the 
Constitution, No one, 1 think, can deny the cor- 
rectness of this principle. Nullification professes 
to conform to it, whilst Secession obviously disclaims 
it; because Secession necessarily breaks the Union. 
You #ill at once perceive, then, that there are a 
countless number of modes in which the principles 
of Nullification^ may be carried out, and it by no 
means follows th'at the doctrine itself is false, be- 
cause it may be abused in practice. Let us, then, 
forget, for the present, South Carolina and all her 
proceedings, and test the correctness of Nullifica- 
tion by a hypothetical case. Suppose that the pre- 
sent Congress should declare, by law, that the 
slave-holding States shall no longer be entitled to 
representation in that body, for three-fifths of their 
■lares. The case is at least possible, be assured, 
and it would be so " palpable and dangerous" an 
assumption of power, as to call loudly for the most 
effective mode of " State interposition," warranted 
by the Virginia resolutions. How would you have 
us proceed ? Would you appeal to the Federal Ju- 
diciary to say whether such a law was constitutional 
or not? I cannot perceive how it is possible to bring 
the case before them; and even if it could be 



brought there, it would be at least a year before it 
could be decided. In the mean time, Virginia 
would be deprived of about one-sixth part of her pro- 
per representation, and would continue to be so de- 
prived until the Supreme Court might choose to take 
up the case. She would thus be thrown on the mer- 
cy of that tribunal, for one of her clearest and 
most important rights. — Besides, this would assur- 
edly be directly in the teeth of Madison's Report, 
which reprobates the idea that the Supreme Court 
has any rightful power over such a question. Would 
you appeal to Congress to repeal the law? This 
Congress ceases to exist on the 4th of March, and 
our elections take place in April. There might not, 
then, be any Congress in session, to whom the ap- 
peal could be made; and even if there were, what 
hope could you have that the same men who show- 
ed themselves capable of such a palpable usurpation 
would immediately disavow it? Besides, this would 
be recognizing the right of Congress to decide on 
the extent of its own powers, which is clearly 
against Madison's resolutions. But suppose that the 
appeal should be actually made, and that Congress 
should refuse to repeal the law — would you sub- 
mit ? The President's doctrines would force you 
to do so. Yet I cannot think that you would agree 
to such doctrines in a case involving the rights of 
your own State, although you advocate them in the 
case of South Carolina. No, sir, you would not 
submit. Then, what would you do? Would you 
agree to suspend the exercise of the essential right 
of representation until you had tried the slow pro- 
cess of an appeal to the other States, in their sepa- 
rate characters? You would be ashamed to coun- 
tenance such a poor spirited surrender of the right 
of self-profection. Would you resort to arms? — 
Upon whom would you make war? Upon Congress 
alone, or upon all the other States? Not upon Con- 
gress, the actual wrong doers, for that would be 
ridiculous — not upon the other States, because they 
might not sanction the usurpation of their Federal 
agent, and therefore, might not be guilty of any in- 
tentional wrong. Would you secede? And if you 
did, how would that redress the wrong, and restore you 
to your right*? Besides, sir, there would be in se-f 
cession, a positive injustice to the other States. Each 
State is entitled to all the benefit which it can de- 
rive from the Union of all, and of course the with- 
drawal of any one State deprives the other States 
of all the benefit which they would derive from 
the presence of such state in the Un'ron. There is 
no doubt of the right of a State to withdraw, and 
we shall presently see when and how that right 



114 



THE EXAMINER, 



may be exerted. But for a State to resort to Se- 
cession, as a primary means of redressing a wrong, 
done by the usurpations of the other States, not 
only defeats its own object, but does injustice to 
the other States. Moreover, it ipso j ado breaks the 
Union, and, therefore, is clearly, as 1 have before 
shown, not within the letter or spirit of the Virgi- 
nia Resolutions. You would not adopt any of these 
modes, and I will now show you how you would 
proceed. You would begin by declaring the law 
unconstitutional, and, therefore, not obligatory* In 
other words, sir, you would nullify the law. Of 
course, you would stand precisely as you did before 
the law was passed, and therefore, you would not 
consider yourself as out of the Union, merely by 
this act of usurpation on the part of the Federal 
Government. You would proceed to elect your 
Representatives in Congress as heretofore, and di- 
rect them to take their seats in that body. If they 
wtre allowed to do so, the law would be thus virtu- 
ally repealed, and all the wrong redressed. If they 
were not allowed to do so, you would still feel un- 
der no obligation to surrender your share in the 
Union; but you would appeal to the other States to 
aay whether they would sanction this usurpation on 
the part of their common agent or not. If the other 
States should refuse 10 sanction the usurpation, you 
would be thus restored to your rights. Otherwise, 
> you would determine for yourself, whether it would 
( be best for you to remain in the Union, with the 
j loss of part of your rights, or go out of the Union 
I altogether. Now, sir, all these primary steps are, 
as you must in candour admit, precisely and strictly 
Nullification; but they are Nullification on a pro- 
per occasion, and asserted in a proper mode. There 
is not a State Rights man on earth, who can object 
to it as thus applied, and applied to such a case; 
and, of course, as a doctrine, it is not wrong. Nul- 
lification and Secession, are both rights; and the 
difference between them is simply this: Nullifica- 
tion proposes to preserve the Constitution, by an- 
nulling every act of the Federal Government, 
which the Constitution does not authorize; it pro- 
poses to preserve the Union, by annulling those usur- 
pations in some mode which shall not withdraw the 
State from the Union, nor embarrass the regular ac- 
tion of the Government within the Constitution. Se- 
cession withdraws the State out of the reach of the 
usurped powers, when all other means of redress 
have failed. Nullification, therefore, is the prima- 
ry right and the primary duty of the State; Seces- 
sion is the ultimate right, when Nullification has 
failed. 

This, sif, is Nullification, as I understand it, and 
as it is undoubtedly contemplated in the Resolutions 
of 1798. 1 bhould be glad to know what objection 
you can urge against it. Permit me now to exa- 
mine its practical results, and to compare them 
with those of the opposite doctrine, as contended 
for by the President. 

It is perfectly true, as the President contends, 
that if a State may declare one law to be unconsti- 
tutional, it may declare any and every other law to 
be so; and by the same rule, each State may, in 
the exercise of the same right, select a particular 
law or laws as unconstitutional, and thus utterly 
destroy the uniform operation of the system. But 
while this is certainly possible, it is in no degree 
probable, and cannot possibly occur, except in such 
a state of public feeling in regard to the Union, as 
would at all events, dissolve it by other means. If 
the States no longer wish to remain in Union, they 
will of course separate. Qut if they are really de- 
sirous to preserve the tJnion, their own interest affords 
a sufficient pledge that they will not endanger it 



by throwing themselves upon their reserved rights, 
except in extreme cases, which require it. If one 
Siate or two States, should be mad enough to do 
so, it cannot be imagintd that such a number of 
them will do so as to afford any ground for the 
President's fears, or any application for the argu- 
ment which he derives from them. The Govern- 
ment of the United State?, is the mere agent of 
the States, for specified purposes, and it is incon- 
ceivable that the States who appointed that agent 
for their own use and advantage, would without 
cause, so embarrass its action, as to render its agen- 
cy of no value. In practice therefore, this argu- 
ment of the President is not entitled to any consi- 
deration. And even if it were otherwise, is it more 
consistent with principle, that the agent should 
control the constituent, or that the constituent 
should control the agent-? These views of the sub- 
ject, however, are worth nothing. We cannot 
judge of the practical operation of the Govern- 
ment, by any such extreme case, flu man sagacity 
cannot foresee, nor human prudence provide tor all 
possible contingencies* nor can human language 
define and limit every possible modification of so- 
cial rights. Although Governments are primarily 
founded in distrust, yet there is, of necessity, some 
degree of confidence in all of them. The wisest 
statesmen can do no more than repose that confi- 
dence in the safest hands, while at the same time, 
he surrounds it with all practicable guards against 
abuse. It the States may abuse their reserved 
rights in the manner contemplated Oy the Presi- 
dent, the Federal Government, on the other hand, 
may abuse its delegated rights. There is danger 
from both sides, and as we are compelled to confide 
in the one or the other, we have only to inquire, 
which is most worthy of our confidence. In the 
first place, as I have already remarked, the States 
cannot have any interest to abuse their reserved 
rights. Besides, the right for which they contend, 
is not a right of action at all, but merely a right to 
check unauthorised action, in the other party. The 
abuse of this right can be found in nothing but in 
the interposition of the State to check its own 
agent, in doing what it expressly authorized Us own 
agent to do, for its own advantage. The right it- 
self is indispensible to self-preservation, while the 
abuse of it is not to be contemplated as sufficiently 
probable, to found any argument against the right 
itself. On the other hand, the Federal government 
has a direct interest to enlarge its own powers, by 
encroaching on the rights of the States. The con- 
stituent can rarely, if ever, have an interest in con- 
tracting the powers of his agent, but prima facie, 
the agent always has an interest in making them 
greater. And when we reflect on the strong love 
which most men feel, for patronage and power, the 
influence of this interest upon the mere men who 
wield the Federal Government, (and who as to this 
argument, must be identified with it) affords much 
cause for distrust and fear. It is therefore much 
more probable that the Federal Government w^U 
abuse its power, than that the States will abase 
theirs. And if we suppose a case of actual abuse 
on either hand, it will not be difficult to decide 
which is the greater evil. If a State should abuse 
its right of interposition by' arresting the operation 
of a constitutional law, the worst that could come 
of it would be, to suspend the operation of the la*r 
for a time, as to that State, while it would have all 
its effects within the other States. This would cem^ 
tainly be unjust, but in most cases, would be attend- 
ed with very little practical evil. In some cases, 
it is true, the consequences might be serious, such 
for instance, as might arise in a time of war; but it 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



115 



U precisely in such cases that the State would have 
the te&st motive for coming" into collision with her 
•later States. Besides, according to the doctrine 
for which I am contending, this evil would be tem- 
porary only; it must cease in some way or other as 
•oon as the other States act upon the subject. 1 
acknowledge however, that it is at best an evil, but 
it is an evil inseparable from our system, and one 
which cannot be-avoided except by submitting to a 
greater evil. It is perfectly evident that this right 
.must ex'pt in the States unless it be incompatible 
with the rights of the Federal Government. Sup- 
posing this incompatibility to exist, there must be a 
right m that Government to control the States in 
this respect, and to enforce a law which the States 
may have pronounced to be unconstitutional. Let 
us now suppose an abuse of this right. It would 
consist in an attempt by the Federal Government to 
coerce obedience to an unconstitutional law. — This, 
sir, it seems to me, is despotism in its very essence. 
If the Federal Government may enforce one uncon- 
stitutional law, it may enforce every unconstitutional 
law, and thus all the rights of the States and the 
people may fall one by one, before the omnipotence 
of that Government. This consequence is too ma- 
nifest to escape even the most superficial observa- 
tion. The worst possible result of nullification, 
even in the opinion of its bitterest opponents, is to 
dissolve the Union — and this result does net legiti- 
mately flow from it; while the alternative which 
they propose, establishes an absolute despotism, 
which not only dissolve* the Union, but establishes the 
toorst possible form of government upon its ruins. 
Thus it appears that nullification is much less apt 
to be abused, than the alternate remedy, and when 
moused, its consequences are infinitely less to be 
deprecated. Of the two evils, I choose the least. 
I preier the remedy, which, although in its extreme 
Abuse, it may lead to disunion, may be peaceful in 
its results, to one which necessarily dissolves the 
Union, and whose direct object and tendency are to 
violence and blood* and absolute power. 

And now Sir, you have a full view of nullification 
as I understand it. As I sinoerely desire to be right 
in politics, as well as in morals and religion, I sub- 
mit myself with all deference, to the correction of 
your greater wisdom. At all events, you ought to 
relieve your own principles from the cloud which 
bow hangs over them, and renders them somewhat 
obscure to the general vision. In my next letter, 
I shall say something to you in reference to South 
Carolina. 

THE PRESIDENT'S MANIFESTO AGAINST 
THE BANK. 

Dram the Washington Globe, Sept. ?3, 1833. 
It has been generally known for some months 
past that the propriety of withdrawing the public de- 
posites from the Bank of the United States was under 
consideration, and engaged much of the attention 
of the President and of different members of his 
Cabinet, all of whom had been called upon by the 
President to, assist him in his deliberation on this 
subject. After a very full and careful examination, 
the President came to the conclusion that the pub- 
lic deposites ought to be changed to the State 
Banks, and his opinion was communicated in writ- 
ing to his Cabinet on Wednesday last, at a meeting 
held specially for that purpose, and the facts and 
reasons on which it was founded. As public atten- 
tion has been drawn to this subject, it is deemed 
proper, in order to prevent misunderstanding or' 
misrepresentation, to lay before the people the com 
municatton made by the President as above men- 



tioned, and a copy has been furnished to us for that 

purpose, which we now proceed to publish: 

Mead to the Cabinet tm the ISth of September, 1833. 

Having carefully and anxiously considered all the 
facts and arguments, which have been submitted to 
him, relative to a removal of the public deposites 
from the Bank of the United States, the. President 
deems it his duty, to communicate in this manner to 
his Cabinet the final conclusions of his mind, and 
the reasons on which they are founded, in order to 
put them in durable form, and prevent misconcep- 
tions. 

The President's convictions of the dangerous ten- 
dencies of the Bank of the United States since sig- 
nally illustrated by its own acts, were so overpower- 
ing when he entered upon the duties of Chief Mag- 
istrate, that he felt it his duty, notwithstanding the 
objections of the friends-by whom he was surround- 
ed, to avail himself of the first occasion to call the 
attention of Congress and the people, to the ques- 
tion of its re-charter. The opinions expressed in 
his Annual Message of December 1829, were reit- 
erated in those of December 1830 snd 1831, and in 
that of 1830, he threw out for consideration, some 
suggestions in relation to a substitute. At the ses- 
sion of 1831-2, an act was passed by a majority of 
both Houses of Congress re- chartering the present 
bank, on which the President felt it his duty to put 
his constitutional veto. In his Message returning 
that act, he repeated and enlarged upon the princi- 
ples and views briefly asserted in his Annual Mes- 
sages declaring the Bank to be, in his opinion, both 
inexpedient and unconstitutional, and announcing to 
his countrymen, very unequivocally, his firm deter- 
mination never to sanction, by his approval, the 
continuance of that institution or the establishment 
of any other upon similar principles. 

There are strong reasons for believing that the 
motive of the Bank in asking for a re-charter at that 
session of Congress, was to make it a leading ques* 
tion in the election of a President of the United 
States theensuing November, and all steps deemed 
necessary, were taken to procure from the people, 
a reversal of the President's decision. 

Although the charter was approaching its termi- 
nation, and the Bank was aware that it was the in- 
tention of the government to use the public depo- 
site as fast as it accrued, in the payment of the pub- 
lic debt, yet did it extend its loans from January, 
1831, to May, 1832, from $42,402,304 24, to $70,. 
428,070 72, being an increase of $28,025,766 48 
in sixteen months. It is confidently believed, that 
the leading object of this immense extension of its 
loans, was to bring as large a portion of the people 
as possible under its power and influence; and it 
has been disclosed that some of the largest sums 
were granted on very unusual terms to conductors 
of the public press. In some of these cases, the 
mo'ive was made manifest by the nominal or insuf- 
ficienl security taken for the loans, by the large 
amounts discounted, by the "extraordinary time al- 
lowed for payment, and especially by the subse- 
quent conduct of those receiving the accommoda- 
tions. 

Having taken these preliminary steps to obtain 
control over public opinion, the Bank came into 
Congress, and asked a new charter. The object 
avowed by many of the advocates of the Bank, was 
to put the President to the test, that the country might 
know his final determination relative to the Bank 
prior to the ensuing election. Many documents and 
articles were printed and circulated at the expense 
of the Bank, to bring the people to a favourable de- 
cision upon its pretensions. Those whom the- Bank 



116 



THE EXAMINER, 



appears to have made its debtors for the special oc- 
casion, were warned of the ruin which awaited them, 
should the President be sustained, and attempts 
were made to alarm the whole people by painting the 
depression in the prioe of property and produce, 
and the general loss, inconTenience and distress, 
which it was represented would immediately fol- 
low the re-election of the President in opposition 
to the Bank. 

Can it now be said that the question of a re-char- 
ter of the Bank was not decided at the election 
which ensued? Had the veto been equivocal, or 
had it not covered the whole ground — if it had 
merely taken exceptions to the details of the Bill, 
or to the time of its passage — if it had not met the 
whole ground of constitutionality and expediency, 
then there might have been some plausibility for 
the allegation that the question was not decided by 
the people. It was to compel the President to take 
his stand, that the question was brought forward at 
that particular time. He met the challenge, wil- 
lingly took the position into which his adversaries 
sought to force him, and frankly declared his unal- 
terable opposition to the Bank as being both uncon- 
stitutional and inexpedient. On that ground the 
case was argued to the people, and now that the 
people has sustained the President, notwithstanding 
the array of influence and power which was brought 
to bear upon him, it is too late, he confidently thinks, 
to say that the question has not been decided. What- 
ever may be the opinions of others, the President 
considers his re-election as a decision of the people 
against the Bank. — In the concluding paragraph of 
his Ve^o Message he said: — 

"I have now done my duty to my country. If sus- 
tained by my fellow citizens, I shall be grateful and 
happy; if not, I shall find in the motives which im- 
pel me ample grounds for contentment and peace." 

He was sustained by a just people, and he desires 
to evince his gratitude by carrying into effect their 
decision, so far as it depends upon him. 

Of all the substitutes for the present Bank, which 
have been suggested, none seems to have united 
any considerable portion of the public in its favour. 
Most of them are liable to the same constitutional 
objections for which the present bank has been con- 
demned, and perhaps to all there are strong objec- 
tions on the score of expediency. In ridding the 
country of an irresponsible power which has attempt- 
ed to control the Government, care must be taken 
not to unite the same power with the Executive 
branch. To give a President the control over the 
currency and the power over individuals now pos- 
sessed by the Bank of the United States, even with 
the material difference that he is responsible to the 
people, would be as objectionable and as dangerous 
as to leave it as it is. Neither the one nor the other 
is necessary, and therefore ought not to be resorted 
to. 

On the whole, the President considers it as con- 
clusively settled that the charter of the Bank of the 
United States will not be renewed, and he has no 
reasonable ground to believe that any substitute 
will be established. Being bound to regulate bis 
course by the laws as they exist, and not to antici- 
pate the interference of the legislative power, for 
the purpose of framing new systems, it is proper for 
him seasonably to consider the means by which the 
services rendered by the Bank of the United States 
are to be performed after its charter shall expire. 

The existing laws declare, that "the deposites of 
the money of the United States, in places in which 
the said Bank and branches thereof may be estab- 
lished, shall be made in said Bank or branches there- 
of, unless the Secretary of the Treasury shall at 



any time otherwise order and direct, in which case 
the Secretary of the Treasury shall immediately lay 
before Congress, if in session, and if tk>t, immediate- 
ly after the commencement of the next session, the 
reason of such order or direction." 

The power of the Secretary of the Treasury over 
the deposites is unqualified. The provision that be 
shall report his reasons to Congress, is no limitation. 
Had it not been inserted, he would have beenTe- 
sponsible to Congress, had he made a removal for 
any other than good reasons, and his responsibility 
now ceases, upon the rendition of sufficient ones to 
congress. The only object of the provision, is to make 
bis reasons accessible to Congress, and enable that 
body the more readily to judge of their soundness 
and purity, and thereupon to make such further 
provision by law as the legislative power may think 
proper in 'relation to the deposit of the public 
money. Those reasons may be very diversified. It 
was asserted by the Secretary of the Treasury, 
without contradiction, as early as 1817, that he had 
power "to control the proceedings" of the Bank 
of the United States at any moment, "by chang- 
ing the depos'.tes to the State Banks," should 
it pursue an illiberal course towards those in- 
stitutions; that "the Secretary of the Treasury will 
always be disposed to support the credit of the 
State Banks, and will invariably direct transfers 
from the deposites of the public money, in aid of 
their legitimate exertions to maintain their credit}" 
and he asserted a right to employ the State Banks 
when the Bank of the United States should refuse 
to receive on deposite the notes of such State Banks 
as the public interest required, should be received 
in payment of the public dues. In several instances 
he did transfer the public deposites to 8tate Banks, 
in the immediate vicinity of branches, for reasons 
connected only with the safety of those banks, the 
public convenience, and the interests of the Trea- 
sury. 

If it was lawful for Mr. Crawford, the Secretary 
of the Treasury, at that time, to act on these prin- 
ciples, it will be difficult to discover any sound rea- 
son against the application of similar principles in 
still stronger cases. And it is a matter of surprise 
that a power which, in the infancy of the bank, was 
freely asserted as one of the ordinary and familiar 
duties of the Secretary of the Treasury, should now 
be gravely questioned, and attempts made to excite 
and alarm the public mind, as if some new and on- 
heard of power was about to be usurped by the Ex- 
ecutive branch of the Government. 

It is but a little more than two and a half years 
to the termination of the charter of the present 
bank. It is considered as the decision of the coun- 
try that it shall then cease to exist, and no man, the 
President believes, hss reasonable ground for ex- 
pectation that any other Bank of the United States 
will be created by Congress. To the Treasury De- 
partment is entrusted the safe keeping and faithful 
application of the public moneys. A plan of col- 
lection different from the present, must therefore 
be introduced and put in complete operation before 
the dissolution of the present bank. When shall 
it be commenced? Shall no step be taken in this 
essential concern until the charter expires, and the 
Treasury finds itself without an agent, its accounts 
in confusion, with no depository for its funds, snd 
the whole business of the Government deranged? 
or shall it be delayed until six months, or a year, or 
two years, before the expiration of the charter? It 
is obvious that any new system which may be sub- 
stituted in the place of the Bank of the United 
States, could' not be suddenly carried into effect on 
the termination of its existence, without serious in- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



117 



convenience to the Government and the people. 
Its vast amount of notes are then to be redeemed 
and withdrawn from circulation, and its immense 
debt collected. These operations must be gradual, 
otherwise much suffering and distress will be 
brought upon the community. — It ought to be not 
m work of months only, but of years, and the Presi- 
dent thinks it cannot, with due attention to the in- 
terests of the people, be longer postponed. It is 
safer to begin it too soon, than to delay it too long. 
It is for the wisdom of Congress to decide upon 
the best substitute to be adopted in the place of 
the Bank of the' United States; and the President 
would have felt himself relieved from a heavy and 
painful responsibility, if in the charter to the Bank, 
Congress had reserved to itself the power of direct- 
ing, at its pleasure, the public money to be else- 
where deposited, and had not devolved that power 
exclusively on one of the Executive Departments. 
It is useless now to inquire why this high and im 
portant power was surrendered by those who are 
peculiarly and appropriately the guardians of the 
public money. Perhaps it was an oversight. But 
as the President presumes that the charter to the 
Bank is to be considered as a contract on the part 
of the Government, it is not now in the power of 
Congress to disregard its stipulations; and by the 
terms of that contract the public money is to be 
deposited in the Bank, during the continuance of 
Ha charter, unless the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall otherwise direct. Unless, therefore, the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury first acts, Congress have no 
power over the subject, for they cannot add a new 
clause to the charter, or strike one out of it with- 
out the consent of the Bank; and consequently the 
public money must remain in that institution to the 
fast hour of its existence, unless the Secretary of 
the Treasury shall remove it at an earlier day. The 
responsibility is thus thrown upon the Executive 
branch of the Government, of deciding how long 
before the expiration of the charter, the public in- 
terest will require the depositees to be placed else- 
where. And, although, according to the frame and 
principle of our government, this decision would 
seem more properly to belong to the legislative 
power, vet as the law has imposed it upon the Exe- 
cutive department, the duty ought to be faithfully 
and firmly met, and the decision made and execut- 
ed upon the best lights that can be obtained, and 
the best judgment that can be formed. It would ill 
become the Executive branch of the Government 
to shrink from any duty which the law imposes on 
it, to fix upon others the responsibility which justly 
belongs to itself. And, while the President anx- 
iously wishes to abstain from the exercise of doubt- 
ful powers, and to avoid all interference with the 
rights and duties of others, he must yet, with un- 
shaken constancy, discharge his own obligations: 
and cannot allow himself to turn aside, in order to 
avoid any responsibility which the high trust with 
which be has been honoured requires him to encoun- 
ter; and it being the duty of one of the Executive 
Departments to decide in the first instance, subject 
to the future action of the legislative power, whe- 
ther the public deposites shall remain in the Bank 
of the United States until the end of its existence 
or be withdrawn some time before, the President 
has felt himself bound to examine the question 
carefully and deliberately in order to make up his 
judgment on the subject; and in his opinion the 
near approach of the termination of the charter, 
and the public considerations heretofore mention- 
ed, are of themselves amply sufficient to justify 
the remoral of the deposites without reference to 



the conduct of the Bank, or their safety in its keep- 
ing. 

But in the conduct of the Bank may be found 
other reasons very imperative in their character, 
and which require prompt action. Developements 
have been made from time to time of its faithless- 
ness as a public agent, its misapplication of pub- 
lic funds, its interference in elections, its efforts, 
by the machinery of committees, to deprive the 
Government directors of a full knowledge of its 
concerns, and above all, its flagrant misconduct as 
recently and unexpectedly disclosed in placing all 
the funds of the Bank, including the money of the 
Government, at the disposition of the President of 
the Bank as means of operating upon public opi- 
nion, and procuring a new charter without requiring 
him to render a voucher for their disbursement. A 
brief recapitulation of the facts which justify these 
charges, and which have come to the knowledge of 
the public and the President, will, he thinks, re- 
move every reasonable doubt as to the course which 
it is now the duty of the President to pursue. 

We have seen that in sixteen months, ending in 
May, 1832, the Bank had extended its loans more 
than $28,000,000, although it knew the Govern- 
ment intended. to appropriate most of its large de- 
posites during that year in payment of the public 
debt. It was in May, 1832, that its loans arrived at 
the maximum — and in the preceding March, so sen- 
sible was the Bank that it would not be able to pay 
over the public deposits when it would be required 
by the Government, that it commenced a secret 
negotiation without the approbation or knowledge 
of the Government, with the agents, for about 
$2,700,000 of the three per cent, stocks held in 
Holland, with a view of inducing them not to come 
forward for payment for one or more years after 
notice should be given by the Treasury Depart- 
ment s This arrangement would have enabled the 
Bank to keep and use during that time the public 
money set apart for the payment of these stocks. 

After this negotiation bad commenced, the Se- 
cretary of the Treasury informed the Bank, that it 
was his intention to pay off one half of the three 
per cents, on the first of the succeeding July, 
which amounted to about $6,500,000. The Presi- 
dent of the Bank, although the committee of inves- 
tigation was then looking into its affairs at Philadel- 
phia, came immediately to Washington, and upon 
representing that the Bank was desirous of accom- 
modating the importing merchants at New York, 
(which it failed to do) and undertaking to pay the 
interest itself, procured the consent of the Secre- 
tary, after consultation with the President, to post- 
pone the payment until the succeeding first or Oc- 
tober. 

Conscious that at the end of that quarter, the 
Bank would not be able to pay over the deposites, 
and that further indulgence was not to be expected 
of the Government, an agent was despatched to 
England secretly to negociate with the holders of 
the public debt in Europe, and induce them by the 
offer of an equal or higher interest than that paid 
by the Government to hold back their claims for 
one year, during which the Bank expected thus to 
retain the use of $5,000,000 of public money, 
which the Government should set apart for the pay- 
ment of that debt. The agent made an arrangement 
on terms in part, which were in direct violation of 
the charter of the Bank, and when some incidents 
connected with this secret negociation accidentally 
came to the knowledge of the public and the Go- 
vernment, then and not before, so much of it as 
was palpably in violation of the charter was disa- 



11» 



THE EXAMINER, 



vowed? A modification of the rest was attempted, 
with the view of getting the certificates without 
payment of the money, and thus absolving the Go- 
vernment from its liability to the holders. In this 
scheme the Bank was particularly successful, but to 
this day the certificates of a portion of these stocks 
have not been paid, and the Bank retains the use of 
the moncv. 

This effort to thwart the Government in the pay- 
ment of the public debt, that it might retain the 
public money to be used for their private interests, 
palliated by pretences notoriously unfounded and 
insincere, would have justified the instant withdraw- 
al of the public deposites. The negotiation itself 
rendered doubtful the ability of the Ban* to meet 
the demands of the Treasury, and the misrepresen- 
tations by which it was attempted to be justified, 
proved that no reliance could be placed upon its 
allegations. 

If a question of the removal of the deposites pre- 
seated itself to the Executive in the same attitude 
that it appeared before the House of Representa- 
tives at their last session, their resolution in relation 
to the safety of the deposites would be entitled to 
more weight, although the decision of the question 
of removal has been confided by law to another 
department of the Government. But the question 
now occurs, attended by other circumstances, and 
new disclosures of the most serious import. It is 
true that in the message of the President, which 
produced this inquiry and resolution on the part of 
the House of Representatives, it was his object to 
obtain the aid of that body in making a thorough 
examination into the conduct and condition of the 
Bank and its branches, in order to enable the Exe- 
cutive Department to decide whether the public 
money was longer safe in its hinds. 

The limited power of the Secretary of the Trea- 
sury over the subject, disabled him from making 
the investigation as fully and satisfactorily as it 
could be done by a committee of the House of 
Representatives, and hence the President desired 
the assistance of Congress to obtain for the Trea- 
sury Department, a full knowledge of all the facts 
which were necessary to guide his judgment. But 
it was not his purpose, as the language of his mes- 
sage will show, to ask the Representatives of the 
people to assume a responsibility which did not 
belong to them, and relieve the executive branch 
of the Government from the duty which the law 
hid imposed upon it. It is due to the President, 
that his object in that proceeding should be dis- 
tinctly understood, and that he should acquit him- 
self of all suspicion of seeking to escape from the 
performance of his own duties, or of desiring to 
interpose another body between himself and the 
people, in order to avoid a measure which he is 
eaHed upon to meet But although, as sn act of 
justice to himself, he disclaims any design of soli- 
citing the opinion of the House of Representatives 
in relation to his own duties, in order to shelter him- 
self from responsibility under the sanction of their 
counsel, yet he is at all times ready to listen to the 
suggestions of the Representatives of the people, 
whether given voluntarily or upon solicitation, and 
to consider them with the profound respect to 
which all will admit that they are justly entitled. 
'Whatever may be the consequences, however, to 
himself, he must finally form his own judgment 
where the constitution and the law makes it his duty 
to decide, and must act sceordingly; and he is 
bound to suppose that such a course^on his part 
will never be regarded by that elevated botty as s 
mark of disrespect to itself* but that they will, on 
the contrary, esteem it the strongest evidence he 



can give, of his fixed resolution conscientiously to 
discharge his duty to them and the country. 

"A new state of things has, however, arisen since 
the close of the last session of Congress, and evi- 
dence has since been laid before the President, 
which he is persuaded would have led the House of 
Representatives to a different conclusion, if it had 
come to their knowledge. The fact that the Bank 
controls, and in some cases substantially ©ton*, and 
by its money support* some of the hading presses 
of the country, is now more clearly established. 
Editors to whom it loaned extravagant sumsiA 1831 
and 1833, on unusual time and nominal security, 
have since turned out to be insolvent, and to others 
apparently in no better Condition accommodations 
still more extra vaganf, on terms more untfsoat and 
sometimes without any security, have also been 
heedlessly granted. 

The allegation which has So often circulated 
through these channels that the Treasury was bank- 
rupt and the Bank wSs sustaining it, when, for 
many years there has not been less, on an average, 
than six millions of public money in that institution* 
might be passed over as a harmless misre presenila- 
tion; but when it it* attempted, by substantial acts, 
to impair the credit of the Government and tarnish 
the honour of the country, such charges require 
more serious attention. With six millions of public 
money in its vaults, after having had the use of from 
five to twelve millions for nine years; without inter- 
est, it became the purchaser of a bill drawn by our 
Government on that of France for about nine hun- 
dred thousand dollars, belnjrthe first instalment of 
the French indemnity. The purchase money was 
left in the use of the Bank, being simply added to 
the Treasury deposite. The Bank sold the bill in 
England, and the holder sent it to France for col- 
lection* and arrangements not having been made by 
the French Government for its payment it was taken 
up by the agents of the Bank in Paris with the 
'funds of the Bank in their hands. Under these cir- 
cumstances it has, through its organs, openly assail-* 
ed the credit of the Government! and hss actually 
made, and persists in a demand of fifteen per cent, 
or $158,842 77 as damages, when no damage, *r 
none beyond some trifling expense, has in fact been 
sustained, and When the Bank had in its own pos- 
session, on deposite, several millions of the public 
money which it was then using for its own profit. Is 
a fiscal agent to the Government, which thus seeks 
to enrich itself at the expense of the public, worthy 
of further tru*t? 

There are othei* important facts not in the con- 
templation of the House of Representatives, or not 
known to the members at the time they voted for 
the resolution. 

Although the Charter and the rules of the Bank 
both declare that "not less than seven directors" 
Shall be necessary to the transaction of business, vet 
the most important business, even that of granting 
discounts to any extent is entrusted toa committee 
of five members, who do not report to the Board. 

To cut off all means of communication with the 
Government in relation to Us most important acts* 
at the commencement of the present year not owe 
of the Government Directors was placed en any one 
Committee. And although, since, by an unusual 
remodelling of those bodies, some of those directors 
have been placed on some of the Committees, tbey 
are yet entirely excluded from the Committee of 
Exchsnge; through which the greatest and most 
objectionable loans have been made. 

When the Government Directors made an effort 
to bring back the business of the Bank to the Board, 
in obedience to the charter and the existing regu- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



ItAions, the Board not only overruled their attempt, 
but altered the rule so as to make it conform to the 
practice, in direct violation of one of the roost im- 
portant provisions of the charier which gave them 
existence. 

It has lon£ been known that the President of the 
Bank, by his single will, originates and executes 
many of the most important measures connected 
with the management and credit of the Bank, and 
that the Committee, as well as the Board of Direc- 
tors, are left in entire ignorance of many acts done, 
and correspondence carried on, in their names and 
apparently under their authority. The fact has been 
recently disclosed, that an unlimited discretion has 
been, and is now, vested in the President of the 
Bank to expend its funds in payment for preparing 
and circulating articles and purchasing pamphlets 
and newspapers, calculated by their contents to op- 
erate on elections and secure a renewal of its char- 
ter. It appears from the official report of the Pub- 
lic Directors, that, on the 30ih November, 1830, the 
President submitted to the Board an article pub- 
lished in the American Quarterly Review, contain- 
ing favourable notices of the Bank, and suggested 
the expediency of giving it a wider circulation at 
the expense of the Bank; whereupon the Board 
passed the following resolution, viz: 

"Jicsolited, That the President be authorized to 
take such measures in regard to the circulation of 
the contents of the said article, either in whole or in 
part, as he may deem most for the interest of the 
flank." 

By an entry in the minutes of the Bank, dated 
March llth, 1831, it appears that the President had 
not only caused a large edition of that article to be 
issued, but had also, before the resolution of 30th 
November was adopted, procured to be printed and 
widely circulated, numerous copies of the Reports 
of Gen. Smith and Mr. M'Duffie in favour of the 
Bank, and on that day he suggested the expedien- 
cy of extending his power to the printing of other 
articles which might subserve the purposes of the 
institution. Whereupon the following resolution 
was adopted, viz: 

"Rewlvcd, That the President is hereby author- 
ized to cause to be prepared and circulated, such 
documents and papers as may communicate to the 
people information in regard to the nature and op- 
erations of the Bank.*' 

The expenditures purporting to have been made 
under authority of these resolutions, during the 
years 1831 and 1832, *ere about 080,000. For a 
portion of these expenditures vouchers were ren- 
dered, from which it appears that they were incur* 
red in the purchase of some hundred thousand co- 
pies of newspapers, reportrand speeches, made in 
Congress; reviews of the Veto Message and reviews 
of speeches against the Bank, 8cc. &c For another 
large portion no vouchers whatever were rendered, 
but the various sums were paid on orders of the 
President of the Bank, making reference to the 
resolutions of the llth March, 1831. 

On ascertaining these facts, and perceiving that 
expenditures of a similar character were still con- 
tinued, the Government Directors a few weeks ago 
offered a resolution in the Board, calling for a spe- 
cific account of these expenditures, snowing the 
objects to which they had been applied, and the 
persons to whom the money had been paid. This 
reasonable proposition was voted down. 

They also offered a resolution rescinding the 
resolutions of November, 1830, and March, 1831. 
This also was rejected. 

Not content with thus refusing to recall the ob- 
noxious power, or even to require such an account 



of the expenditure as would show whether the 
money of the Bank had in fact been applied to the 
objects contemplated by those resolutions, as ob- 
noxious as they were, the Board renewed the power 
already conferred, and even enjoined renewed at- 
tention to its exercise, by adopting the following in 
lieu of the propositions submitted by the Govern- 
ment Directors, viz: 

"Hesolved, That the Board have confidence in 
the wisdom and integrity of the President, and in 
the propriety of the resolutions of 30th November, 
1830, and llth March, 1831, and entertain a full 
conviction of the necessity of a renewed attention 
to the object of those resolutions, and tbat the Presi- 
dent be authorized and requested to continue hit 
exertions for the promotion of said object." 

Taken in connexion with the nature of the ex* 
penditures heretofore made, as recently disclosed, 
which the Board not only tolerate but approve, this 
resolution puts the funds of the Bank at the dispo- 
sition of the President for the purpose of employ- 
ing the whole press of the country in the service of 
the Bank, to hire writers and newspapers, and to 
pay out such sums as he pleases, to what persons 
and for what purposes he pleases, without the re- 
sponsibility of rendering any specific account. The 
Bank is thus converted into a vast electioneering 
engine, with means to embroil the country in dead- 
ly feuds, and, under cover of expenditures, in 
themselves improper, extend its corruption through 
all the ramifications of society. 

Some of the items for which accounts have been 
rendered, show the construction, which has been 
given to the resolutions and the way in which the 
power it confers has been exerted. The money 
has not been expended merely in the publication 
and distribution of speeches, reports of committees, 
or articles written for the purpose of showing the 
constitutionality or* usefulness of the Bank. But 
publications have been prepared and extensively 
circulated, containing the grossest invectives against 
the officers of the Government; and the money 
which belongs to the stockholders and to the pub- 
lic, has bf en freely applied in efforts to degrade, 
in public estimation, those who were supposed to 
be instrumental in resisting the wishes of this grasp- 
ing and dangerous institution. As the President of 
the Bank has not been required to settle his ac- 
counts, no one but himself yet knows how much 
more than the sum already mentioned may have 
been squandered, and for which a credit iu»y here- 
after be claimed in his account under this most ex- 
traordinary resolution. — With these facts before us, 
can we be surprised at the torrent of abuse inces- 
santly poured out against all who are supposed to 
stand in the way of the cupidity or ambition of the 
Bank of the United States? Can we be surprised 
at sudden and unexpected changes of opinion in fla- 
vour of an institution which has millions to lavish, 
and avows its determination not to spare its means 
when they are necessary to accomplish its purposes? 
The refusal to render an account of the manner in 
which a part of the money expended has been ap- 
plied, gives just cause for the suspicion that it has 
been used for purposes which k not deemed pru- 
dent to expose to the eyes of an intelligent and 
virtuous people. Those who act justly do not shun 
the light, nor do they refuse explanations when the 
propriety of their conduct is brought into question. 

With these facts before him, in an official report 
from the Government Directors, the President 
would feel that he was not only responsible for all 
the abuse and corruptions the Bank has committed, 
or may commit, but almost an accomplice in a con- 
spiracy against that government which be has sworn 



120 



THE EXAMINER, 



honestly to administer, if he did not take every step 
within his constitutional and legal power likely to | 
be efficient in putting an end to these enormities. 
If it be possible, within the scope of human affairs, 
to find a reason for removing the Government de- 
posites and leaving the Bank to its own resource 
tor the means of effecting its criminal designs, we 
have it here. Was it expected when the moneys 
of the United States were directed to be placed in 
that Bank, that they would be put under the control 
of one man, empowered to spend millions, without 
rendering a voucher or specifying the object? Can 
they be considered safe with the evidence before 
us, that tens of thousands have been spent for high- 
ly improper, if not corrupt purposes, and that the 
same motive may lead to the expenditure of hun- 
dreds of thousands, and even millions more? And 
can we justify ourselves to the people by longer 
lending to it the money and power of the Govern- 
ment, to be employed for such purposes? 

It has been alleged by some as an objection to the 
removal of the de poshes, that the Bank has the 
power, and in that event, will have the disposition, 
to destroy the State Banks employed by the Go- 
vernment, and bring distress upon the country. It 
has been the fortune of the President to encounter 
dangers which were represented as equally alarm- 
ing, and he has seen them vanish before resolution 
and energy. Pictures equally appalling were pa- 
raded before him when this Bank came to demand 
a new charter. But what was the result? Has the 
country been ruined, or even distressed? Was it 
evermore prosperous than since that act? The Pre- 
sident verily believes the Bank has not the power, 
to produce the calamities its friends threaten. The 
funds of the Government will not be annihilated by 
being transferred. They will immediately be issu- 
ed for* the benefit of trade, anjl if the Bank of the 
United States curtails i{s loans, the State Banks, 
strengthened by the public deposites, will extend 
theirs. What comes in through one Bank, will go 
out through others, and the equilibrium will be pre- 
served. Should the Bank, for the mere purpose of 
producing distress, press its debtors more heavily 
than some of them can bear, the consequences will 
recoil upon itself, and in the attempts to embarrass 
the country, it will only bring loss and ruin upon the 
holders of its own stock. But if the President be- 
lieved the Bank possessed all the power which has 
been attributed to it, his determination would be 
only rendered the more inflexible. If, indeed, this 
corporation now holds in its hands the happiness 
and prosperity of the American people, it is high 
time to take the alarm. If the despotism be already 
upon us, and our only safety is in the mercy of the 
despot, recent developements in relation to his de- 
signs and the means he employs, show how neces- 
sary it is to shake it off. The struggle can never 
come with less distress to the people, or under 
more favourable auspices than at the present mo- 
ment. 

All doubt as to the willingness of the State Banks 
to undertake the service of the Government, to the 
same extent, and on the same terms, as it is now 
performed by the Bank of the United States, is put 
to rest by the report of the agent recently employ- 
ed to collect information; and from that willingness, 
their own safety in the operation may be confident- 
ly inferred. Knowing their own resources better 
than they can be known by others, it is not to be 
supposed that they would be willing to place them- 
selves in a situation which they cannot occupy with- 
out danger of annihilation or embarrassment. The 
only consideration applies to the safety of the pub- 
lic funds, if deposited in those institutions. And 



when it is seen that the directors of many of them 
are not only willing to pledge the character and ca- 
pital of the corporations in giving success to this 
measure, but also their own property and reputa- 
tion, we cannot doubt that they, at least, believe 
the public deposites would be safe in their manage- 
ment. The President thinks that these facts and 
circumstances afford as strong a guarantee as can 
be had in human affairs, for the safety of the public 
funds and the practicability of a new system of col- 
lection and disbursement through the agency of the 
State Banks. 

From all these considerations the President thinks 
that the State Banks ought immediately to be em- 
ployed in the collection and disbursement of the 
public revenue; and the funds now in the Bank of 
the United States drawn out with all convenient 
despatch. The safety of the public moneys, if de- 
posited in the State Banks, must be secured beyond 
all reasonable doubts; but the extent and nature 
of the security, in addition to their cspital, if any 
be deemed necessary, is a subject of detail to 
which the Treasury Department will undoubtedly 
give its anxious attention. The Banks to be em- 
ployed must remit the moneys of the Government 
without charge, as the Bank of the United States 
now does; must render all the services which that 
Bank now performs; must keep the Government 
advised of their situation by periodical returns; in 
fine, in any arrangement with the State Banks, the 
Government must not, in any respect, be placed 
upon a worse footing than it now is. The Presi- 
dent is happy to perceive by the report of the 
agent, that the Banks which he has consulted have* 
in general, consented to perform the service on 
these terms, and that those in New York have fur- 
ther agreed to make payments in London without 
other charge than the mere cost of the bills of ex- 
change. 

It should also be enjoined upon any Banks which 
may be employed, that it will be expected of them 
to facilitate domestic exchanges for the benefit of' 
internal commerce; to grant all reasonable facilities 
to the payers of the revenue; to exercise the utmost 
liberality towards. the other state banks; and do no- 
thing uselessly to embarrass the Bank of the United 
States. 

As one of the most serious objections to the bank 
of the United States, is the power which it concen- 
trates, care must be taken in finding other agents for 
the service of the Treasury not to raise up another 
power equally formidable. Although it would pro- 
bably be impossible to produce such a result by any 
organization of the State Banks which could be de- 
vised — yet it is desirable to avoid even the appear- 
ance. To this end it would be expedient to assume 
no more power over them, and interfere no more 
in their affairs than might be absolutely necessary 
to the security of the public deposite, and the faith- 
ful performance of their duties as agents of the 
Treasury. Any interference by them in the political 
contests of the country, with a view to influence 
elections, ought, in the opinion of the President, be 
followed by an immediate discharge from the pub- 
lic service. 

It is the desire of the President that the control 
of the Banks and the currency shall as far as possi- 
ble be entirely separated from the political power 
of the country, as well as wrested from an institu- 
tion which has already attempted to subject the go- 
vernment to its will. In his opinion the action of 
the General Government on this subject, ought not 
to extend beyond the grant in the Constitution, ' 
which only authorizes Congress "to coin money and 
regulate the value thereof;" all else belongs to the 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



121 



States and the people, and must be regulated by 
public opinion and the interests of trade. 

In conclusion, the President must be permitted 
to remark, that he looks upon the pending question 
as of higher consideration than the mere transfer of 
a sum of money from one Bank to another. Its de- 
cision may affect the character of our Government 
for ages to come. Should the Bank be suffered 
longer to use the public moneys, in the accomplish- 
ment of its purposes, with the proofs of its faith- 
lessness and corruption before our eyes, the patriotic 
among our citizens will despair of success in strug- 
gling against its power; and we shall be responsible 
for entailing it upon our country for ever. Viewing 
it as a question of transcendent importance, both in 
the' principles and consequences it involves, the 
President could not, injustice to the responsibility 
which he owes to the country, refrain from pressing 
upon the Secretary of the Treasury his view of the 
considerations which impel to immediate action— 
Upon him has been devolved by the Constitution 
and the suffrages of the American people, the duty 
of superintending the operation of the Executive 
departments of the Government, and seeing that the 
laws are faithfully executed. In the performance 
of this high trust, it is his undoubted right to ex- 

Eress to those whom the laws and his own choice 
ave made his associates in the administration of 
the Government, his opinion of their duties under 
circumstances as they arise. It is this right which 
he now exercises. Far be it from him to expect or 
require, that any member of the Cabinet should, at 
his request, order or dictation, do any act which he 
believes unlawful, or in his conscience condemns. 
From them, and from his fellow citizens in general, 
he desires only that aid and support which their 
reason approves, and their conscience sanctions. 

In the remarks he has made on this all important 
question, he trusts the Secretary of the Treasury 
will see only the frank and respectful declarations 
of the opinions which the President has formed on 
a measure of great national interest, deeply affecting 
the character and usefulness of his administration; 
and not a spirit of dictation, which the President 
would be as careful to avoid, as ready to resist. — 
Happy will he be, if the facts now disclosed pro- 
duce uniformity of opinion and unity of action 
among the members of the administration. 

The President again repeats that he begs his Ca- 
binet to consider the proposed measure as his own, 
in the support of which he shall require no one of 
them to make a sacrifice of opinion or principle. Its 
responsibility has been assumed, after the most ma- 
ture deliberation and reflection, as necessary to pre- 
serve the morals of the people, the freedom of the 
press, and the purity of the elective franchise, with- 
out which all will unite in saying that the blood and 
treasure expended by our forefathers in the estab- 
lishment of our happy system of Government will 
have been vain and fruitless. Under these convic- 
tions, he feels that a measure so important to the 
American people, cannot be commenced too soon; 
and he therefore names the first day of October next 
as r period proper for the change of the deposites, 
or sooner, provided the necessary arrangements 
with the State Banks can be made. 

ANDREW JACKSON. 



DISTRICT COURT, Oct. 6, 1834. 

Ikfobtutt Case. 

The U. S.s#. David Leavittand G. S. Howland. 

Before the Hon. Judge Dame. 
The District Attorney, A. Dunlap, Esq. appeared 



for the Government, and Daniel Webster, Esq. for 
the defendants. Mr. Dunlap stated, that this was 
an action for a Custom House bond given by Messrs. 
Ln & Co. for the payment of certain duties claimed 
by the Government upon a large quantity of leaden 
busts imported per ship ' Julian' — which duties de- 
fendants refused to pay. Messrs. Leavitt & Co. Mr. 
D. said, were white lead manufacturers at Brooklyn, 
N. Y. and had imported these articles under the 
name of metal busts, affirming them as such to be 
free from duty under the act passed by Congress in 
1832, which provides, that " all busts of marble, 
metal, or plaster, shall be imported into the U. S. 
free of duty." The Custom House authorities, 
however, contended that the busts in this case were 
but pigs of lead, thrown into their present form for 
the purpose of avoiding the duty. This, Mr. Dun- 
lap said, was clearly the case, and the defendants 
had violated the law — at least its spirit — by which 
alone the decision of the Court ought to be govern- 
ed; he said, Congress had evidently never intended 
that lead should be thus imported — they had lately 
discovered the " leak" in the former act, and had, at 
the last session, passed another act prohibiting the 
admission of bust* unless they could be proved to be 
double the value of the metal of which they were 
composed. This Mr. D. designated as " declaratory 
law," and we understood him as saying that it ought 
to have its effect on the present occasion. 

Mr. Webster said the law imposed a dut/of three 
cents per lb. upon 'Mead in pigs, bars or sheets." 
Now the simple question was whether the articles 
before the Court (the busts) were or were not pigs 
bars or sheets of lead. Certainly they were not. He 
had no desire to see the laws evaded — and he had 
performed his share of duty elsewhere in supplying 
the defect which existed in relation to the importa- 
tion of lead. There was, however, a fatal omission 
in the act of '32, under which these busts had been 
imported — a «« leak" as the counsel for the govern- 
ment had termed it, and such being the case, the 
defendants in the present instance could not be call- 
ed upon to pay the duty. As to the law passed by 
Congress, during last session, that had nothing to 
do with the present case. No law could operate 
retrospectively. All new laws looked to the future 
and not to the past; and the very fact of Congress 
having amended the law of '32, proved the exist- 
ence of the defect and omission which had led to 
the importation of the articles in question. He 
(Mr. W.) repeated that he had no wish to sanction 
evasions of the law, but he thought it better, now 
that the leak in the act of '32 had been stopped — 
now that no further evil could accrue— that the re- 
venue should suffer in this single instance, rather 
than that a forced construction should be put upon 
the law in order to procure a conviction. 

After a reply from Mr. Dunlap, his Hon. Judge 
Davis addressed the jury in a most able and impar- 
tial charge, in the course of which he alluded to a 
former decision in relation to sugar. The duty on 
sugar, he said, had been fixed at a very high rate ; 
but was eluded in many cases by the introduction 
of the articles, in a pounded Btate. The government 
claimed the duty, but the court, notwithstanding 
the pounded sugar was superior to the best Ameri- 
can loaf sugar that could be obtained, decided that 
it was not loaf sugar, and therefore not subject to 
the duty. 

The jury, after some deliberation, gave it as their 
opinion, "that the articles in question were leaden 
busts, and consequently free from duty." 

The total amount of lead imported by Messrs. 
Leavitt & Co. in the shape of Busts during the sum- 
mer was stated to be 664,000 lbs. — Boston Atlas. 



122 



THE EXAMINER, 



PHILADELPHIA: 

Wednesday, November 12, 1834, 



The experience of the last three months has con- 
vinced us that the plan upon which the Examiner 
was established, thajt of absolute payment in ad- 
vance, has defects, which it is expedient without de- 
lay to remedy. The custom universally prevalent 
in reference to periodical works, of an implied con- 
tinued subscription until notice be given of discon- 
tinuance* is too deeply rooted to be broken in upon, 
and in order to save the paper from a repetition of 
a shock such as that which it experienced at the 
termination of the first volume, when a growing list 
of seven thousand five hundred subscribers, was in- 
stantly reduced to two thousand, we find ourselves 
obliged to submit to its authority, as relates to all 
future subscribers. We say * ' all future subscribers,' 1 
because we have not the right to alter the terms as 
relates to those who are now on our list, without 
their assent, and who, will consequently cease to 
be subscribers after the expiration of their present 
terms, unless they previously signify to us their ac- 
ceptance of the new conditions. 

In making this change, however, an increase in 
the price of subscription will be necessary. Nothing 
but a very large subscription list at the low price 
heretofore charged, with payment in advance, 
would render the paper an object worth pursuing, 
and as that large subscription cannot possibly he se- 
cured, if the paper has to be built up afresh every 
year, there is no middle ground between this course 
and its total abandonment at the end of the volume. 

Being desirous of avoiding this latter alternative, 
and at the same time of giving all the subscribers 
who received the first volume, an opportunity of 
having the second, upon the old terms, we hereby 
give notice, that after the first day of January next, 
the price of subscription to the Examiner will be 
two dollars per annum, payable annually in advance. 
But where three subscribers unite in a remittance of 
$5, before the expiration of three months from the 
commencement of each year, a discount will be al- 
lowed of one third of a dollar to each. 

Postages to be paid in all cases, except upon let- 
ters containing $5 in a single note, or any larger 
sum. 

Those who subscribe before the first of January, 
will receive the back numbers of the present vo- 
lume. Those who may subscribe after that date, 
will receive them if any remain on hand. 

To Subscribers, — There are on our list 650 subscrib- 
ers who never received the first thirteen numbers of 
VoL 1. and whose year will expire with No. 13 of 
Vol. 3, whjch will appear on the 28th of January 
next Any of these who may renew their subscript 
tions before that date, can be supplied with the said 
first thirteen numbers if they desire H, in which 
\ they will be charged the old price. 



The Recent Elections — The following is the re- 
sult of the late elections for members of Congress, 
as far as officially known. 

Maikx has elected five Jacksonmen, and two anti- 
Jacksonmen, leaving one vacancy. 

Cokhxcticot, three anti-Jacksonmen, to supply 
three vacancies in the present Congress, the other 
three being of the same party. 

NswJxassT, six Jacksonmen. 

Peh HBTLVijriA, seventeen Jacksonmen, and eleven 
anti-Jacksonmen. 

Ohio, nine Jacksonmen, and ten anti-Jacksonmen. 

South Cabou*a, two Jacksonmen, and seven 
Nullifiers. 

Geobgia, nine Jacksonmen. 

The political complexion of the Legislatures of 
the same States, in joint ballot, during the approach- 
ing Session, will be — 

Maine, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia on 
the Jackson side. 

Connecticut, Ohio and South Carolina, on the 
anti-Jackson side. 

Garret D. Wall, Esq. was elected by the Legislature 
of N. Jersey on the 30th ult. a Senator in Congress 
for six years from the 4th of March, 1835, in the 
place of Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Wall received 35 
votes, Mr. Frelinghuysen 38 votes—being a majo- 
rity of 7 votes. Peter V. Vroom was re-elected 
Governor of the State, by the same body. 



New JPbrft.— The elections in this State for i 
bers of Congress, Governor and members of the 
State Legislature, were held on Monday, the 3d 
inst. and on the following two days. At the time of 
putting this paper tq press, the only returns of 
which we can speak with certainty, are from the 
city, where the Jackson candidates for Congress, 
and the office of Governor, have succeeded by about 
3300 majority. 

Georgia. — The following is the aggregate of the 
votes of all the Counties in Georgia, 90 in number, 
as published in the Augusta Constitutionalist. 



State Rights Ticket. 
Geo. R. Gilmer, 38,499 
Rich'd H. Wilde, 38,395 
Thos. F. Foster, 38,340 
R. L. Gamble, 37,936 
A. H. Chappell, 37,732 
M. B. Lamar, 27,594 
Robert A. Beall, 27,579 



Union Ticket. 

James M. Wayne, 33,013 

Wm. Schley, 32,939 

G. W. B. Towns, 32,694 

John Coflee, 32,682 

Chas. £. Haynes, 32,651 

Geo. Yfx Owens, 32.567 

Seaton Grantland, 32,555 

James C. Terrell, 32,546 , Wm.C. Daniell, 27,558 

J. W. A. Sanford, 32,455 Daniel Newnan, 27,541 
The average of the Union votes is 32,677 
That of the State Rights votes is 27,896 

Giving an average Union majority of 4^781 

Before Georgia can come out straight, and occu- 
py theoretically the position to which she practically 
belongs, it will require that 3391 shall be cured of 
their man-worship, fi 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



123 



South Carolina. — The following are the names of 
the newly elected members of Congress from this 
State. 

1st District, Henry L. Pinckney. 

2d « c Warren R. Davis. 

8d « F. W. Pickens, 

4tlv " Robert Campbell. 

5th " Jama Rogers. 

6th " James H. Hammond* without opposi- 
tion. 

7th «< Col. Manning. 

Sth « William J. Graysoil. 

9th " John K. Griffin. 

OCJ* Those in italics are Union men — the rest 
Nullifies. 

The Nullifiers hare elected to each branch of the 
Legislature, a majority of two-thirds, sufficient to 
render the Oath of Allegiance adopted by the last 
Legislature, a part of the Constitution. 



The Hon. Thomas S. Grimke, of Charleston, S. 
C. died on the 15th of October, aged 48, near 
Columbus, Ohio, on his way to that place, from Cin- 
cinnati. 

The Hon. fin. H. Crawford, formerly Secretary 
of the Treasury of the United States, departed this 
Me near Elberton, Georgia, on the 15th of Septem- 
ber last 

.Lasses by Jtfm7.— We hare lost more money by 
Miscarriage through the mail, within the last twelve 
months, than, we befieve, in any previous three 
years. The frequency of these losses, shows a rot- 
tenness m the Post Office Establishment, which is 
discreditable to its administration. 

The Ookkn PUL— 'In out last paper we undertook 
to show that the late debasement of the gold coin- 
age bad conferred not one discernible particle of 
benefit upon the gold producing States, and as we 
consider it important that the people of the' 
South, who ha* e been, without reflection, led into 
the belief that they were to be made rich by an act 
of Congress, should be put right on the subject, we 
will place the matter before them in a more intel- 
ligible form. 

By the act of 1791, the gold dollar contained 24| 
grains of pure gold. Uy the sate act, the gold dol* 
lar contains 23 1-5 grains of pure goM» which is a 
reduction of a little more thaw 6 2-3 per ©ent>— 
This clipping of the gold dollar* is asserted by those 
who got up the measure, to he so much clear gain 
to the producer of gold, inasmuch as 23 1-5 grains 
of gold since the passage of the law, is worth as 
much as 34 3-4 grams used to be before the passage 
of the law. -Now this assertion supposes that peo- 
ple when they give commodities for gold, give them 
not for specific quantities of metal, but for denomi- 
nations, and such reasoners might with equal pro- 
priety allege, that 10 grains of gold would be worth 
as much as 24 3-4 grains, If Congress should only 
taj law call that quantity one dollar. Haw would 



any man of common sense, who, last May, had a bush- 
el of wheat worth one dollar, and which if paid for 
in gold would have produced him 24 3-4 grains of 
pure metal, sell it now for 10 grains, merely be- 
cause Congress had in June declared that 10 grains 
were a* dollar? The affirmative of this proposition 
is too absurd to be for a moment entertained. No 
man would be guilty of such folly, and hence it may 
be taken for granted, and as admitting of no dispute* 
that Congress has it not in its power by any act it can 
devise, to raise the intrinsic value of gold, any more 
than that of any other metal. Would it be possible 
for Congress, for example, to raise the value of iron 
by declaring that a ton of iron should henceforth 
consist of fifteen hundred weight instead of twenty 
hundred weight, or, to raise the intrinsic value of 
lead, by declaring that the hundred weight should 
contain one hundred pounds, and not an hundred 
and twelve. No one would pretend that it would 
be, and is there any more reason for supposing that 
it could raise the price of gold, which differa no- 
Ihing from the other two metals, in its liability to be 
governed by the laws which make value to depend 
upon the proportion which the supply bears to the 
demand? We may then safely and certainly con- 
clude, that an ounce of gold can be exchanged at 
this day, for no more merchandise or commodities 
than it could have been exchanged for, before the 
alteration of the coinage, and consequently that 23 
1-5 grains will not buy as much as 24 3-4 grains used 
to do. 

But it may be said, admitting this to be true, as 
regards commodities in general, there is however 
one exception, which is the commodity called sil- 
ver*. The efTect of the law is to enable the owner 
of an ounce of gold to get for it sixteen ounces of 
silver, whereas before its passage, he could only ob- 
tain for it fifteen ounces. In our former article we 
showed that the real difference effected by the law 
was only a trifle over 2 per cent, but admitting it for 
the sake of argument to be true to the full extent, 
what benefit would this confer upon the producer 
of gold, except indeed so far as he wishes to provide 
himself immediately with silver plate? So long as 
he employs his sixteen ounces of silver as coin, he 
con purchase with them no more commodities than 
he can with bis ounce of gold, and we have seen 
that with an ounce of gold he can now purchase no 
more commodities than he could before. If he 
wishes to put into his pocket the profit he thinks 
he can make by converting his gold into silver, be 
con only accomplish it, by exporting the silver, in 
which case he is benefitted, not as a producer of gold, 
but as an exporter of silver; or, by boarding it, until 
it has risen m the market, as bultion,above its value 
as Coin, which might possibly be attended by a loss of 
interest equal to the gain by the rise. Besides these 
two modes, no other can be imagined, and even 
they would not be long available to hum, for as soom 
so sitter should have risen to its sair bullion price by 






134 



THE EXAMINER, 



the demand for exportation, he would cease any 
longer to obtain sixteen ounces of it, for one ounce 
of gold, and thus, the only possible advantage he 
could have derived from the change, would entirely 
disappear. 

It would seem then that the effect of the Gold Bill, 
which was as greedily swallowed by the Southern 
people, as if it had been a golden pill, is to enable the 
producers of gold to get for an ounce of it, precise- 
ly as many commodities as they used to get before, 
with the exception of silver. Of this commodity they 
can get two per cent, more, but after they have 
gotten it, the additional quantity is of no value to 
them, seeing that with sixteen ounces they can buy 
no more commodities than with the ounce of gold. 
They are just where they started, and for the sake 
of an ideal gain, they have sanctioned a violation of 
the public faith, have authorized all existing credi- 
tors to be cheated out of a part of their property, 
by compelling them to take 23 1-5 grains of gold, 
in fulfilment of a contract made for the payment of 
24 3-4 grains, have weakened the cause of free 
trade, by courting a legislative protection of their 
supposed local interests, and have opened the door 
for future tamperings with the coinage by Congress, 
which at some future day will in all probability, clip 
the silver dollar, as they have now clipped the gold 
dollar, and thus create a new fraud upon creditors. 
If we have not made ourselves well understood, 
perhaps the following story will help us out: 

A certain king, who once governed a country, 
which was threatened with a famine, caused an es- 
timate to be made of the whole quantity of grain in 
bis dominions, and having called his wise men to- 
gether, he consulted them as to the best mode of 
making the stock of grain hold out. Some of them 
recommended, that the price should be fixed high 
by law, in order that people should be forced to eat 
less. Others recommended, that it should be equally 
distributed, so that all should fare alike, whilst 
others were in favour of letting every man do with 
his own wheat, just what he pleased, believing that 
in consulting his own interest, he would best consult 
the interest of all the rest. One of the counsel- 
lors, however, wiser than all his fellows, after the 
others had given their opinions, rose up and address- 
ed the King as follows: 

'•Please your majesty, I have a plan to propose 
which cannot fail to be more beneficial, than any 
that has yet been suggested. It is simply to increase 
the quantity of grain. This I propose to do by a 
very easy process. The bushel of this country you 
know, contains four pecks: Now as it appears by 
the statement of the number of bushels of grain on 
hand, that doubling the quantity will give us all 
an abundance, I propose to effect this increase by 
reducing the sixe of the bushel. Your majesty 
therefore, has nothing to do, but to issue a decree, 
declaring that henceforth, the bushel shall contain 
only two pecks instead of four, and the immediate 



effect will be, that the number of bushels of wheat 
in the country will be doubled." The scheme was 
received by all the wiseacres present, with accla- 
mation. The decree was passed; all the persons 
who rented lands payable in bushels of wheat, paid 
off their landlords with the new measure; those 
who had wheat for sale, finding themselves to have 
double the number of bushels which they thought 
they had, felt as if suddenly enriched; others who 
had merchandise to sell, received two bushels in 
exchange for it, as readily as they received one the 
day before and considered themselves at once plac- 
ed beyond the reach of famine. Prosperity seemed 
to have come upon them by enchantment, and the 
whole community, went on living and eating as 
freely as if they were in the lap of abundance; until 
all at once, the awful truth stared them in the face, 
that this glorious scheme was a humbug, which bene- 
fitted not a single soul, but those who were in debt 
under contracts stipulating for the payment of bush- 
els of wheat. 

Future Collection of the Public Revenue — A friend 
of ours, who was an ardent advocate of the prin- 
ciples of free trade, once remarked in conversation, 
"if I could have my own way, I would not have such 
a thing as a custom house from one end of the coun- 
try to the other." This remark astonished the by- 
standers, one of whom, with great solicitude in- 
quired, "Why how should we be able to get foreign 
goods, if we had no custom houses?" It often hap- 
pens that habit forms such associations in the mind, 
as to render it difficult for new views to penetrate, 
and there are no doubt many people, who really 
think that we could have no foreign goods, without 
custom houses; as there are many people, brought up 
in countries where it is impossible to move without 
a passport, who are not able to see how a man can 
travel in this country without one. 

Precisely of this character is the idea so univer- 
sally prevalent in our cities, that the public revenue 
cannot be collected without the agency of a bank, 
and hence it is, that all attempts to prove its fallacy, 
must encounter a mass of prejudice not easily over- 
come. This however, shall not deter us from the 
attempt, and if we do not succeed in convincing all, 
we trust we shall succeed in convincing some. Our 
plan then is simply as follows. 

1. Let the collector of each port of entry, be au- 
thorized to have a vault constructed within bis cus- 
tom house, which no one will pretend, cannot be 
made as strong and as secure against fire and thieves, 
as the vaults of a bank, and let him be held respon- 
sible, by sufficient securities for the safe keeping of 
the public money entrusted to his care. 

2. Let Congress declare that all monies payable 
for duties to the United States, after a certain day, 
shall be paid in gold and silver and in nothing else, 
and that all sums payable by the United States, m 
the various disbursements of the government, shall 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



125 



in like manner be paid in gold and silver and in 
nothing else. 

Now this operation is in itself perfectly simple 
and there is not in the land an individual who cannot 
at once see its practicability. There is no mystifi- 
cation about it, and if the public revenue receivable 
at any one place, was precisely equal to the sum to 
be expended by the government at that one place, 
no one who wishes to see the government entirely 
divorced from the banking system, would hesitate 
to pronounce it expedient. 

Amongst the advantages to be derived from a hard 
money system like this, would be the following. 

1. The injunction of the Constitution would be 
complied with, which declares that "all duties, im- 
posts and excises, shall be uniform throughout the 
United States," for nothing could be more uniform 
than gold and silver, or, rather we should say, noth- 
ing can be uniform but gold and silver. 

2. There would be no quarrelling about the pub- 
lic deposites, nor no intriguing with the government 
to get possession of them. 

3. The abstraction from actual use of the amount 
of coin in the custom house vaults, drawing no in- 
terest, would be a motive for Congress to take es- 
pecial care, that there should be little, or no surplus 
revenue. 

4. The principal inducement for Congress to 
charter a federal bank, would be entirely removed, 
and thus the country would be saved from that pe- 
riodical convulsion in politics and money concerns 
which cannot fail to occur at, or before, the expira- 
tion of every federal bank charter. 

5. The public deposites would confer no politi- 
cal or pecuniary influence upon any individual or 
corporation, and no administration could use them, 
for buying up banks, or partisans. 

But to this acheme of collecting the revenue, 
various objections will be raised by the advocates of 
a new federal bank, and of a league of State banks, 
as well as by others who have not given the subject 
due reflection. 

The Jirtt objection will be that the money would 
not be safe in the vaults of a custom house. And 
why not as safe there as in the vaults of a bank ? Pro- 
perty to a large amount is always under the lock 
and key *>f the custom house, and is considered per- 
fectly safe; and why should not gold and silver, 
which is but another species of property, be equally 
safe? It could only be in the large cities, that heavy 
sums would be on hand, and If the collectors could 
not be entrusted with them, special officers might 
be appointed to perform the duties of treasurers. 
Who ever dreams that the vast amount of gold and 
silver bullion deposited in the mint, is in danger of 
robbery or peculation from the officers? And could 
not as honest men be found in every city, as those 
who have managed that institution for more than 
forty years? But, if there were danger on that 



score, it could not remain long undiscovered. It 
could be made the duty, by law, of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, once in every year, by his drafts, 
to probe the soundness of every custom house, by 
emptying its vaults, and in that manner, fraud could 
not long remain concealed. We cannot, therefore, 
regard this objection as a valid one, and few per- 
sons would think the public money more unsafe in 
the vaults of the custom houses, than in those of 
the State banks, in which it now lies. 

A second objection that would be made is, that 
the payments inwards and outwards at the custom 
houses, would be attended by a vast deal of labour, 
expense and inconvenience in counting large sums 
of coin and in transporting them to and from the 
vaults. Let us examine into this objection. It is 
true, that the first payments into the custom house 
vaults would have to be accomplished by the abso- 
lute conveyance upon carts or drays of a quantity 
of coin, and that it would have to be counted, just 
as is the case with coin deposited in a bank. This 
process would last, however, only until a sum was 
accumulated equal to the amount of the cash ba- 
lance, which the government might think it proper 
to keep in the vaults of that particular custom 
house, to enable it to discharge with punctuality its 
engagements. All subsequent payments into the 
custom houses would be made in the treasury drafts 
drawn upon them, and there would be an end of the 
labour, expense and inconvenience of transporting 
and counting large sums. For these Treasury 
drafts would be every where received by the banks 
in the vicinity of the custom house, upon which 
they were drawn, as cash, because the banks would 
know that they would command the coin on pre- 
sentation, and because the banks would find it 
their interest to facilitate payments into the custom 
house, by handing over these drafts to those having 
duties to pay, who kept accounts with them. This 
is so palpably the course that things would take, 
that there can be no doubt at all about it, and if 
any occasional transportation of coin should take 
place, to or from the custom houses, the expenses 
would be very trifling, and the banks would, in all 
probability, incur them voluntarily as they do 
the expense of furnishing blank checks and books 
to their customers. As to the labour of counting, 
we have ascertained that a smart clerk can count 
4000 silver dollars in an hour, and gold coin in much 
less time) and a single dray will haul twenty-five 
thousand dollars for half a mile for a quarter of a 
dollar, and 400,000 gold dollars for the same sum. 
If therefore an estimate must be made of this labour 
and expense, they are too trifling to be thought of 
for a moment, as an objection against a measure cal- 
culated to render the government what it was in- 
tended to be, as John Randolph used to say, "a hard 
money government," and which every friend to its 
stability should desire to see it; for it will be found 
upon calculation, that the whole revenue of the U. 



126 



THE 'EXAMINER, 



States, estimating* it at 24 millions of dollars, could 
be counted twice over, by four clerks, working only 
300 days in the year. 

A third objection might be, that as the revenue is 
not all collected at the points where the expendi- 
tures are to be made, the government would be put 
to the expense and risk of transporting the coin from 
one place where it was not wanted, to another place 
where it was wanted, or, that it would be obliged to 
purchase bills of exchange, which would not only 
be attended with trouble and risk, but would con- 
vert the government into a dealer in exchange, and 
thus bring a money influence into the political field, 
which it is one of the chief designs of a hard mo- 
ney system to prevent. To this we reply, that the 
objection would be obviated, by the following very 
simple process, which is a principal feature in our 
plan. It should be declared by law, that all local 
and fixed expenditures, such as those due for sala- 
ries to public officers, &c. shall be payable in drafts 
upon the custom house nearest to the spot where 
the payment is due, which has in its vaults available 
funds, and that all payments under special contracts 
shall be made at the places stipulated in the con- 
tract, which would of course always be the places 
at which the revenue accrued. These drafts would 
always be negotiable through the local banks, and 
as they would all be drawn upon cities and towns on 
the sea board, to which remittances from the coun- 
try would constantly be making, they would most 
generally command a premium. It is not easy to 
imagine a case in which a treasury draft drawn upon 
the nearest custom house would not be convertible 
into cash without loss, and consequently, no injury 
could be sustained by any public creditor. 

According to the arrangement which existed un- 
der the Bank of the United 8tates, the Government 
was enabled to make payments at twenty-five diffe- 
rent points, being those at which the bank and its 
twenty-four brandies were located. Under the plan 
here suggested it will be enabled to make payment 
at upwards of an hundred different points, and con- 
sequently, the facilities of collecting its.drafts by 
those who hold them must be increased rather than 
diminished. The local banks which used to collect 
these treasury drafts upon the Bank of the, U. States 
and its brandies, would fctill be as ready to collect 
those drawn upon the vaults of the custom houses, 
and we are not able to conceive of a single circum- 
stance that could operate to the prejudice of a pub- 
lic creditor by the change. 

A fourth objection would be, that this plan woald 
require more coin than could easily be obtained by 
the persons who have duties to pay. In answer to 
this, we state that ev^ry man whoswt* haa duties to 
pay, must either have coin to pay them with, or 
bank notes, and that under the new plan, nothing 
more would be required of him, if he could not 
procure a floating treasury draft, than to take his 



bank notes to the banks that issued them, and de- 
mand payment. This liability to be called upon for 
coin might possibly sometimes oblige the local banks 
to keep on hand a larger amount of coin than they 
might otherwise do, but the public would sustain no 
injury from that measure, and therefore, it ought 
not to be an objection to the plan proposed, that it* 
tendency will be, to make the local banks keep 
themselves in a sounder state than at present. 

A fifth objection would be, that the government 
would lose the interest upon the amount of specie 
lying idle. This is very true, but this, as we have 
already said, would be a motive with Congress to 
keep down the revenue, so as to let it exceed, as 
little as possible the amount of expenditures. But 
at all events, as regards this particular, the govern- 
ment would be no worse off than heretofore, for ne- 
ver has she derived one dollar in the shape of inte- 
rest, for any of the sums she has had lying idle in 
the Bank of the United States, or the State Banks. 
A loss of interesC for idle cash is inseparable from 
all large dealings, where punctuality ought to be 
observed, as with governments, but this loss is more 
than compensated by the better terms upon which 
contracts are made by one that deals for cash, than 
by one that deals on credit, so that, in reality, no 
loss whatever occurs from a reasonable cash balance 
kept on hand by a government, or by an individual. 

A tiath objection is, that admitting it to be true, 
that the government would lose no more interest fey 
the new plan than by the old one, yet that the com- 
munity sustains a loss by the non-employment of a 
capital, which, if deposited in banks instead of the 
vaults of the custom houses, would be loaned out, 
by which process, the .community would have the 
use of the capital, whilst the government would be 
no worse off. This is true enough, but in order to 
see the force of the objection, let us analyse it, and 
see what it will amount to. The average amount of 
depositee on hand ought not to exceed $6,500,000, 
the interest upon which at 5 per cent, would be, 
$325,000 per annum. This sum divided amonget 
the ' thirteen millions of population, would be not 
quite two and a half cents per head, and the abjec- 
tion therefore, supposes, that the incalculable bles- 
sings which the country would derive from the mea- 
sure proposed, which would secure us forever from 
a recurrence of the frightful scenes of the past year, 
exempt the government from all participation 4n 
-money transactions, and the people from the possi- 
bility of a coalition between a powerful monied cor- 
poration and the government, would be dearly pur- 
chased by an annual tax of two and a half cents per 
bead. No patriot, we trust, will listen to so frivo- 
lous an objection. 

A tevtnlh objection might be, that the duties of 
the collectors, of the customs would be rendered too 
great. To this we answer, that should this be the 
ease, the difficulty could easily <be remedied by the 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



127 



appointment of a cashier in each custom house, 
where the business was extensive, and if an estimate 
be made of the additional expenses to be incurred 
thereby, they will be found to be so trifling as to 
ampunt to mere dust in the balance. 

Although Vn this plan we hare for the sake of sim- 
plifying the argument, referred only to the revenue 
collected through the custom houses, yet, it is equal- 
ly applicable to that collected through the various 
land offices, which should be embraced in any hard 
money system, and if it be desirable that coin should 
be more extensively circulated throughout the inte- 
rior than it is at present, receipts and payments in 
com at the various land offices would have that ef- 
fect. 

In putting forth these views, we know them to 
contain the sentiments of a number of sound politi- 
cal economists in this quarter. If the scheme is lia- 
ble to any objections which we have not noticed, or, 
v if we have not been successful in obviating ,tho*e 
we have attempted to meet, our columns will be 
open to any one who maybe disposed to discuss the 
subject. Now is the moment for settling the ques- 
tion. Nothing but providing for the collection of 
the public revenue without the instrumentality of 
banks, can prevent the incorporation of a new fede- 
ral bank, before three years are over. A large por- 
tion of those who have been instrumental in destroy- 
ing the present one, have been actuated by no mo- 
tives in the world, but the desire of having a fresh 
speculation in bank stock to gamble with, and if the 
real opponents of such a bank upon principle, do 
net unite in some plan of separating the govern- 
ment from the banking system, they, or their chil- 
dren will live to see the day, when the country will 
again be convulsed from one extremity to another, 
as it has been of late. 

Manifesto of the President against the Sank.— It 
*s our intention to record in this volume of the Exa- 
miner,? for rature reference, some of the principal 
documents connected with the Removal of the Pub- 
lic Deposites. We give to-day the first move in the 
game, in the form of the President's Manifesto, by 
which betook upon himself "the responsibility." 

It appears from this document that when Mr. 
Jackson resolved to remove the deposites from the 
Bank of the United States, be really thought that 
the operation was a mere business of sending a par- 
cel of drays to Nicholas Biddle's marble palace, in 
Chesnut street, and hauling some few hundreds of 
kegs of dollars to the Girard Bank in Third street, 
and, as be supposed, that the money would just as 
certainly be loaned out by the latter nstitution, as 
by the former, he could not imagine, how this mere 
transfer of dollars from one vault to another, not five 
hundred yards distant, could possibly produce a con- 
vulsion from one end of the country to the other. 
In this State of Pennsylvania, there are thousands 
whose views on the subject were quite as limited as 



Mr. Jackson's, and hence we saw the position bold- 
ly asserted in our Legislature, last winter, and 
through the press, that the existing distress had not 
been in any degree occasioned by the removal of 
the deposites. That sucb opinions should have been 
entertained by persons who are not conversant with 
the science of currency, is not to be wondered at; 
but it is to be wondered at, that intelligent people 
who understood the subject better, should have sus- 
tained the President in adhering to the measure, af- 
ter its mischievous character had been developed, 
and after he and every body about him must have 
had all doubts removed, as to its having been the 
cause of the calamity. 

In every country where credit enters extensively 
into the transactions of people, there must always 
be liabilities to what are called panics. The effect 
of a panic is, to engender doubts as to the solvency 
of banks and individuals, which lead to a demand 
upon banks for coin inpayment of their notes, a 
measure which obliges them to call upon their debt- 
ors for payment. The debtors thus suddenly called 
upon are driven to the expedient of borrowing mo- 
ney of private lenders, at a higher rate of interest 
than legal interest, or to make forced sales of their 
property. A pressure falling thus in the 'first in- 
stance solely upon those who are indebted to banks, 
soon reaches the rest of the community. The pay- 
ments into the Bank by its debtors, beyond the 
amount of the specie withdrawn.amount to a positive 
annihilation of currency, and this annihilation dimi- 
nishing the amount in existence, destroys some of 
the facilities which borrowers before enjoyed. Eve- 
ry man therefore, who is in debt feels it more or less. 

But the pressure does not limit itself to those 
who are in debt. It falls also upon people who are 
not in debt. Capitalists abstain from new transac- 
tions, for .fear of embarrassment. Hence arises a 
suspension of industry. Merchants diminish the 
number of their voyages— build fewer new ships- 
reduce their imports of foreign goods. Manufac- 
turers shut up their factories, and dismiss their 
hands, or reduce their wages,— mechanics build 
fewer houses, owing to the demand being diminished 
by the necessity of economizing, which compels 
people to rent a room, who, in prosperous times, 
would have rented a house. The millers and coun- 
try merchants cannot purchase from the farmer, as 
much grain and other produce, as formerly, owing 
to the scarcity of money, whilst the planters find 
their crops of tobacco, cotton and rice, diminished 
in price from the same cause. In fact, every branch 
of business is affected by the general stagnation, 
and the country sustains an absolute loss, to the va- 
lue of all the productive labour which has been sus. 
pended by the panic. 

The effects* however, of this general distress, are 
felt more keenly by the poor and workiag classes. 
Those persons who possess property, may lest a 
part of it, but they are not brought to want. The 



128 



THE EXAMINER, &c. 



man who wed to spend $2,000 per annum, can ma- 
nage to live upon $1500, and if he were driven 
down to $1000, he would still not starve. All who 
stand at some distance from the great abyss of pau- 
perism, can bear to be pushed some paces towards 
it, without tumbling in, but those unfortunate be- 
ings, and they constitute a large portion of the in- 
dustrious community, who always live from hand to 
mouth, who rely for their daily bread upon their 
daily labour, have not an inch between them and 
positive beggary. — A general pressure of the crowd 
towards the abyss, inevitably poshes them in, but 
as they are mostly of a class of people who have no 
influence, nor no means of presenting themselves as 
a body seeking for relief, they have no remedy, but 
to beg, borrow or steal, and this they do perhaps, 
without as much as being acquainted with the cause 
which has deprived them of employment. 

Such being the effects liable to result from panics, 
how clear is it that no extraordinary causes should 
be encouraged which can have a tendency to bring 
them on. When they occur from causes which arise 
in the natural course of contingencies, of the pro- 
bability of which the public has an opportunity of 
judging, they can be met by precautions, as the 
mariner meets a storm, by taking in sail, when he 
sees one brewing. Thus, the winding up of the 
Bank of the United States, in 1836, was an event 
foreseen by every one who was not blind, and all 
prudent men would have prepared for the reduction 
of loans necessarily attendant upon that operation. 
But no extent of prudence or foresight could have 
saved a man from Mr. Jackson's experiment, and 
coming as it did, upon an unprepared community, 
it operated with twice^or thrice the force that the 
mere winding up the Bank could have done. 

Chid Coins. — By a statement published in the 
Globe, it appears that from the 1st of August, until 
the 1st of November, the value of gold coins struck 
at the mint was $2,498,900. 

Rhode Island. — The House of Representatives of 
this State, containing a majority of Anti-Jackson 
men, at its late session, passed a resolution to invite 
the Senate to go into Convention for the choice of 
a United States 9 Senator, to supply the place of Mr. 
Knight, whose term of service will expire on the 
4th of March, next. The Senate declined, and the 
Legislature adjourned, without an election. 

State Hights in Ohio. — The following articles 
from the two principal State Rights papers in Ohio, 
will show that the glorious cause of liberty is not to 
be given up in that State. 

From the Zanesville Messenger. 

The late elections which have taken place in 
many of the States, have turned on principles 



much less than could be desired. Yet we think 
rather more than they did a year ago: at least, prin- 
ciples were more discussed previous to the elec- 
tions, and in a better style than usual. This will be 
the case more and more, until the plain question of 
despotic government or rational liberty is made be- 
fore the people: or in other words, whether the 
Constitution of the United States is binding on the 
general government, or whether the officers in the 
ten miles square are unlimited in power. On the 
decision of this question will depend the happiness 
of the people, and indeed the very existence of our 
Republican institutions. 

Under these circumstances, it becomes the dis- 
ciples of Jefferson, those who would restrain power 
within its limits, to keep, on in their exertions in the 
cause of our country. Their efforts will conduce 
to human happiness, becase they uphold the prin- 
ciples which alone can preserve the rights and 
liberties of the people. Parties founded on person- 
al attachment or partiality to particular men, are 
but factions at best, and have been the bane and 
ruin of many countries, whilst those founded on 
sound principles are most beneficial to a country, be- 
cause they bold up the lamp of truth to the people 
unobscured by petty, local or personal interests. 

From the St. ClairsvUle Journal & Enquirer, 

Our Course. — The struggle is not over. We have 
gained something upon our opponents, though not 
all we could have wished, nor quite all we anticipat- 
ed. We cannot say, "now is the winter of our dis- 
content made glorious summer." Much yet re- 
mains to be done, ere our State and the Union can 
be proclaimed redeemed and disenthralled. But 
though not so successful in this campaign as we 
hoped for, shall we therefore "hang up our bruised 
arms as monuments?'* Shall we go into "winter 
quarters," and give ourselves up to the revelry of a 
deceitful and inglorious peace? Whatever others 
may be preparing to do, and whatever others may 
finally determine upon doing, we shall keep the 
field. We have not been contending for men, but 
for principles. Ttyese we shall continue to contend " 
for, and cheerfolly await the result. We have held 
that if the republic is saved, it must be by an ac- 
knowledgement of those political doctrines which 
preserved the integrity of the Constitution, in the 
" reign of terror, " under the elder Adams.— 
The recent election assures us that we are correct. 
Therefore, we snail persevere, requesting the aid, 
in behalf of our good cause, of all honest and true 
republicans. Of this our determination, an evidence 
will be found in an article on the first page of this 
paper. 

The article referred to, on the first page of the 
Journal, was a continuation of Locke's Essays upon 
the Virginia Resolutions, addressed to Thomas) 
Ritchie, Esq., which are also republishing in the 
Messenger. 



Exportation of Silver. — The gold bill is beginning 
to work. The New York Daily Advertiser states, 
that on Thursday, the 30th of October, one hundred 
thousand American silver half dollars, were purchas- 
ed at one per cent, premium, for exportation. This 
is probably the first movement of the outward tide. 
The Journal of Commerce informs us that the in- 
ward current of gold has stopped. 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED* TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OF STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE* 

* - - ■>■■ ■ . ■■■ i , ■ i. _ ■ t ^ . 

The Powers not Delef ated to the United States, by tbe Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the 8tates, are reserved to the 

State* respectively, or to tbe People Amendment* to tko Constitution, Art. X. 

F rmd n m of htduotrf, as sacred as freedom of speech or of tbe press. . Jefferson. 



Vol. II.] 



Wednesday, November 26, 1834. 



[No. 9. 



AN EXPOSITION 
Of the Virginia Resolution of 1798, in a series of 
Essays, addressed to Thomas Ritchie, by a distin- 
guished citizen of Virginia, under the signature of 
•• Locke," in February, 1833. 

No. VI. 
You hare been, air, exceedingly unsparing in 
your denunciation of nullification, but I do not re- 
collect that you hare ever afforded a single argu- 
ment against it. Ton have indeed abused Mr. Cal- 
houn, until even his worst enemies are ready to 
take sides with him, from mere sympathy with the 
persecuted and oppressed. That such a man should 
be borne down before an enlightened people, by a 
man of Andrew Jackson's pretensions, is a moral 
anomaly, worthy the especial notice of the future 
historian. You appear to have thought, that it 
was enough to destroy John C. Calhoun, and nulli- 
fication must fall of course. This is a mistake. The 
doctrine did not originate with him, does not de- 
pend on him for its support, and will not die with 
the death of his influence. You may, therefore, 
spare him without fear that such a tribute to decen- 
cy, will affect nullification either one way or the 
other. It would certainly have been much more 
worthy of your standing among our public journal*, 
if you had attempted to enlighten our understand- 
ings instead of appealing to our partizan feelings 
The huzsas of man-worship are alike degrading to 
tbe press, and insulting to its supporters. Instead 
of proving that nullification is wrong, you have 
wisely, perhaps, but not generously, it is certain, 
contented yourself with efforts to prove that the 
Nullifiers are wrong. This was beyond all doubt 
much the easier task of the two, but unfortunately, 
the mass of your readers have not so understood you. 
Tour paragraphs have been so contrived as to be 
generally received as an utter denunciation of South 
Carolina, and her whole doctrines and proceedings 
together, at the same time that their strict letter 
will allow you to say hereafter, that your reproach- 
es were meant, not for the doctrine, but only for 
the particular mode of asserting it It always gives 
me pain to see an influential public journal dealing 
With its readers in this uncandid way. Whenever 
the preas yields itself wholly to party, it becomes, 
instead of a blessing, the worst possible curse to a 
free country. It is then dangerous in exact propor- 
tion to its influence. Whenever the liberties of 
this country shall be overturned, a corrupt and bire- 
linr press will he the chief agent in the mischief 
This, however, is a digression, and It will certainly 
make do impression upon you. 1 was going to say, 
that while the principles upon which Suoth 



Carolina has proceeded are undeniably right, I 
agree with you, that she has fallen into some very 
great errors, in her course of proceeding. On one 
point, 1 will agree wit!) the President of the United 
States, an approximation to error at which I can- 
not but feel uneasy. I think that the Tariff laws, 
although clearly against the spirit of the Constitu- 
tion, by the gross inequality or their burthens, are 
yet not so "palpably" unconstitutional as to call for 
Nullification, nor so "dangerous" as to demand Se- 
cession, until every hope shall be lost, that Congress 
will modify them. I, therefore, may well censure 
South Carolina in this respect, but you cannot; for 
you profess to consider those laws altogether and 
unequivocally unconstitutional. 1 think also, that 
South Carolina appointed too early a day, for the 
operation of her ordinance. I think also, that some 
of her enactments for enforcing that ordinance are 
too rigorous, and probably are themselves unconsti- 
tutional. And I have another objection which I 
have not yet seen stated in any newspaper. The 
principle upon which nullification proceeds, demand 
that the nullifying State, shall refer her decision to 
conventions of the other States — snd that she shall 
give way, if such Conventions overrule her. In 
every case therefore, which will admit of it, she 
ought to take care that the other States sustain no 
injury from the suspension of the law by her, in 
case her decision should be overruled. ^ In the pre- 
sent case, the injury would consist in the loss of 
duties, and therefore, South Carolina should merely 
have suspended the payment of duties, and should 
have guaranteed the ultimate payment of every 
cent of them, in case tbe other States— and a bare 
majority ought to be sufficient— -should decide the ■ 
Tariff Laws to be constitutional and she should 
thereupon determine not to secede. In ell these 
respects, and perhaps in others, South Carolina ap- 
pesrs to me, to have acted unadvisedly. Suppose, 
however, that she had avoided all these errors, 
would it not have been nullification still? And with 
what could you then have reproached her? Sup- 
pose that, instead of the tariff laws, she had nullifi- 
ed a law declaring all her slaves to be free? Would 
you not have commended her extraordinary moder- 
ation, and her scrupulous respect for her co-States, 
in submitting to them the question ofthe constitu- 
tionality of such a law, involving directly the high 
est of her rights? You certainly would, sir; and 
wherein, then consists the difference? Simply, 
Mr. Ritchie, in the application of the doctrine, and 
not in the doctrine.— Hereafter, sir, when you de- 
nounce nullification, you should say, in unequivocal 
terms, that it is not nulttflcation in itself, but South 



130 



THE EXAMINER, 



Carolina nullification, which- you mean to condemn. I 
You may then come back (as come back you must, 
and shortly too % ) to the true doctrines of tjie Con- 
stitution, with a better grace. 

And now, sir, as South Carolina, is undeniably 
right in her principles, and merely wrong in some 
of the measures by which she has endeavoured to 
assert them, does she for this deserve the sword or 
not? 1 have heard the lawyers say, that you do not 
forfeit your claim in a court of justice by suffering 
a non-suit for bringing your action wrong; and I 
imagine that this would be equally true, if (he non- 
suit subjected your adversary to the costs. It is 
perfectly clear that you cannot coerce South Caro- 
lina, without placing the authority of Congress above 
that of the States, in deciding on the extent of the 
powers of Cimgrcss itself \ and, of course 9 y ou thus de- 
stroy the right of the Siate altogether. This seems to 
me to be altogether too high a forfeiture to be in- 
curred for a mere error in the forms of asserting a 
right. And besides, sir, do you perceive no dan- 
ger to the Constitution in the extraordinary powers 
Which you are asking Congress to confer upon the 
President? It is not enough to say that these powers 
are only to be exerted contingently — since the bill 
now before Congress leaves it to the President him- 
self to determine when the contingency may arise. 
Is there no danger that if it should not arise in the 
ordinary couise of events, he will make it for him- 
self? Nothing is easier than to do this, and thus you 
put the whole matter at his discretion. 1 know how 
unbounded your confidence in the President is; but 
you ought to recollect (hat this very confidence is 
the principle upon which dictators are made. You 
J cannot but know that if blood is shed by the Federal 
1 arm in South Carolina, this union is d^solved, and a 

Seneral civil war will be the result. Is there any 
egree of confidence which can justify the submis- 
sion of such an issue to the discretion of any one 
man? Do not tell me that if the President abuses 
the trust reposed in him he is amenable to punish- 
ment. Will an impeachment of Andrew Jackson 
restore the Union— bring back to the veins the 
blood which he has shed, and bring the dead to 
life? The same argument would prove that he 
ought to be clothed with all power, restrained 
only by the fate* requisition that he shall exert 
it for- the public good. It is not in this way that 
a vigilant guardian of public liberty ought to act. — 
There is too much reason to fear that the confidence 
which confers such a power, may easily be brought 
to sanction an abuse of it. For my part, I consider 
it infinitely better that South Carolina should nulli- 
fy every law in the code, than to trust any man's 
discretion with the issue of union and peace, on the 
one hand, and disunion and civil war on the other. 
' Moreover, sir, do you not consider it utterly op- 
posed to all correct notions of constitutional law, 
/that the Federal Government should make war upon 
, the citizens of a State for an act done by that State 
' in its sovereign character? I am sure that nothing 
can be found in the columns of the Enquirer, be- 
fore it embraced the cause of Andrew Jackson, to 
countenance such an idea as this. What has chang- 
ed you Mr. Ritchie? Perhaps you have changed 
because Andrew Jackson himself has changed. — 
This would not be at all surprising in you, sir, since 
the whole commonwealth (proh pudor!) appears to 
have been revolutionized in a single hour for the 
same reason. Let us, however, in order that we 
may know hereafter how inconsistently it is possi- 
ble for a man to act, without forfeiting his character, 
see what this same General Jackson has said on a 
former occasion. In his "talk" to the Indian dele- 
gation from Georgia, in 1839, he holds this lan- 



guage: — "The sword of the United States might be 
looked to as the arbiter, &c. But this can never be 
done. The President cannot and will not beguile 
you with such an expectation. The arms of this 
Government can never be employed to stay any State 
of the Union from the exercise of those legitimate power* 
which belong to her Sovereign character," This is truly 
republican — and what a pity it is that he did not ad- 
here to it!— Surely, the right to declare that an un- 
constitutional act of Congress realists so, is acknow- 
ledged by you to be a "legitimate power" belong- 
ing to every State "in her Sovereign character," 
and this is the power which South Carolina has ex- 
erted. Do you think, then, that the President can 
consistently "employ the arms of this Government 
to stay her?" The case in 1829 involved the rights 
of Georgia— that in 1833 involves the rights of Soutfi 
Carolina. This is the only difference, be assured- 
Do you recollect, Mr. Ritchie, what a clamour of de- 
nunciation you raised against Mr. Adams for threat- 
ening — and he only hinted at it, too — to enforce 
the authority of the Federal^ Government against 
Georgia? Do you remember how strongly you then 
denounced the idea of making war on a sovereign 
State of this Union? Georgia has been in the regu- 
lar habit of "bullying the Union" — that is the phrase 
at present— from that time to this, and you have 
neither disapproved of her course, nor has General 
Jackson threatened her with the rod. A fact so 
glaring as this cannot fail, sooner or later, to make 
its due impression upon the public mind, to the 
everlastine shame of General Jackson and his press. 

These letters, sir, have already been extended 
much beyond what I originally proposed, as their 
utmost limit. They have been very hastily written, 
never revised, and are altogether unpretending in 
their character. They have been designed merely 
to revive in the minds of those who may read them* 
the almost forgotten principles of 1798, and to call 
public attention to the absolute and total overthrow 
of those principles, which is already well nigh ef- 
fected, by General Jackson. Of course, like other 
newspaper paragraphs upon the same subject, they 
will be forgotten with the hour. This is exactly the 
fate which I wish them to experience* if they can 
make the desired impression as they are read. I 
shall now conclude them, with another view of the 
subject before us, which is certainly worthy of your 
consideration. 

South Carolina is a Southern State, having the 
same interest with ourselves, in all respects; and for 
ten years, she has been our best help in this very 
Tariff contest. Is it not shameful in us to desert 
her now, in her utmost need? And, besides, is it 
not our obvious interest to sustain her, particularly in 
the present position of the Tariff and Anti-Tariff 
parties' You kn_ow perfectly well, that iflbre than half 
the Tariff Delegation came to Washington in De- 
cember, prepared to reduce the system to the reve- 
nue standard] and you also know that they changed 
their purpose, as soon as the Proclamation was issued. 
They saw that the President, although he professed 
a desire to modify those laws, would, nevertheless, 
enforce them by the sword, if they were net repealed. 
What better encouragement can they want, to per- 
severe in their system? Nay* what better precedent 
can they have, for enforcing any other law, which a 
majority of the people of the United States may find it 
their interest to pass? The Northern interest already 
possesses that majority, and is in no danger of losing 
it. Is it not, then, our obvious interest to pursue 
such a course as will strengthen, instead of breaking 
that bond which now binds the Southern States to- 
gether? What shall we gain by driving South Ca- 
rolina out of the Union, or by weakening her influ- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



131 



ence while ahe remains in it? We should be led to 
sustain her, by every consideration of justice, be- 
cause she is oppressed; by every consideration of 
generosity, because she is the weaker party; by 
every consideration of prudence and wisdom, be- 
cause we must stand or rail alone; with htr. 

I can scarcely permit myself, sir, to ask you what 
We ought to think of the part which General Jack- 
son is acting rn this eventful drama? He knows that 
any modification of the Tariff Laws, will, 'of itself, 
whether it raise or reduce the duties, defeat aH the 
measures of South Carolina at once. The Ordi- 
nance relates only to the existing Laws. He knows 
this, and he also knows that his influence can cause 
those lav* te be modified infour-and-twenty hours.— 
What motive is there, then-^what reason can there 
se, for this alarming and perilous recourse to force? 
He stands before the people of this country as a 
President of the United States, making war upon 
the people, without necessity; as a Southern 
■ton, strengthening the arm of Northern power, 
against Southern interests; as a son of South Caro- 
lina, turning his wrath against his native State, and 
encouraging a civil war among her people, for the 

Satifioation of a false pride, or vindictive feeling?! 
istory does not present a worse picture, of the 
worst forms of human character. You, Mr. Ritchie, 
have long ago said, that bis election would be "a 
curse upon the country." I know not, sir, bow 
you wilt better soften the reproaches which attach 
to your manifest tergiversation and inconsistency, 
than by throwing yourself upon your reputation as 
a true prophet. 
February, 1833. LOCKE. 



REPORT 
Of ike Secretary of the Treasury on the removal of 

the Public Deposites from the Bank of the United 

States— made to both Houses of Congress, December 

4th, 1833. 

TaxasURT DrrAKTMSirr, "> 
December 3d, 1833. > 

8m:— In pursuance of the power, reserved to the 
Secretary of the Treasury, by the Act of Congress, 
entitled, "An act to incorporate the subscribers to 
the Bank of the United States," I have directed, 
that the deposits of the money of the United States 
shall not be made in the said Bank, or Branches 
thereof, but in certain State Banks, which have been 
designated for that purpose. And I now proceed 
to lay before Congress, the reasons which induced 
me to give this order and direction. 

The sixteenth section of the law above mention- 
ed, is in the following words: "And be it further 
eaacted.that the deposites of the money of the Unit- 
ed States, in places in which the said Bank and 
Branches thereof may be established, shall be made 
in said Bank or Branches thereof, unless the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury shall at any time otherwise 
order and direct, in which case, the Secretary of the 
Treasury shall immediately lay before Congress, if 
in session, and if not, immediately after the com- 
mencement of the next session, the reasons of such 
order or direction. " 

It has besn settled by repeated adjudications, that 
a charter, granted by a State to a corporation like 
that of the Bank of the United States, is a contract 
between the sovereignty which grants it, and the 
stockholders. The same principle must apply to a 
charter granted' by the United States, and conse- 
quently the act incorporating the Bank is to be re- 
garded as a contract between the United States of 
the one part, and the stockholders of the other: and 
by the plain terms of this contract, as contained in 
toe section above quoted, the stockholders have 



agreed, that the power reserved to the Secretary 
over the deposites shall not be restricted to any par- 
ticular contingencies, but be absolute and uncondi- 
tional, as far ss their interests are involved in the 
removal. The order, therefore, of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, directing the public money to be de-t 
posited elsewhere, can in no event be regarded as a 
violation of the contract with the stockholders, nor 
impair any right secured to them by the charter. — 
The Treasury Department being entrusted with the 
administration of the finances of the countiy, it was 
always the duty of the Secretary, in the absence of 
any legislative provision on the subject, to take 
care that the public money was deposited in safe 
keeping, in the hands of faithful agents, and in con* 
venient places, ready to be applied according to the 
wants of the Government. The law incorporating 
the Bank has reserved to him, in its foil extent, the 
power he before possessed. It does not confer on 
bim a new power, but reserves to him his former an- 
thority, without any new limitation. The obliga- 
tion to assign the reasons for his direction to depo- 
sit© the money of the United States elsewhere,, 
cannot be considered as a restriction of the power, 
because the riybt of the Secretary to designate the 
place of deposite was always necessarily subject to> 
the control of Congress. And as the Secretary of 
the Treasury presides over one of the Executive 
Departments of the Government, and*his power 
over this subject forms a part of the Executive da- 
ties of his office, the manner in which it is exer- 
cised must be subject to the supervision of the 
officer to whom the Constitution has confided the 
whole Executive power, and has required to lake 
care that the laws be faithfully executed. 

The faith of the United States is, however, 
pledged, according to the terms of the section above 
stated, that the public money shall be deposited in 
this Bank, unless "the Secretary of the Treasury 
shall otherwise order and direct." And as this 
agreement has been entered into by Congress, in 
behalf of the United States, the pfcrce of deposite 
could not be changed by ,a Legislatrve act, without 
disregarding a pledge, which the legislature has 
given; and the money of the United States must 
therefore continue to be deposited in the Bank, 
until the last hour of its existence, unless it shall be 
otherwise ordered by t^e authority mentioned in the 
charter. The power over the place of deposite for 
the public money would seem properly to belong 
to the Legislative department of the Government; 
and it is difficult to imagine why the authority to 
withdraw it from this Bank was confided exclu- 
sively to the Executive. But the terms of the chart 
ter appear to be too plain to admit of question: and 
although Congress should be satisfied that the pub- 
lic money was not safe in the care of the Bank, or 
should be convinced that the interests of the people 
of the United States imperiously demanded the 
removal, yet the passage of a law directing it to be 
done, would be a breach of the agreement into 
which they have entered. 

Assuming this to be the true construction of the 
charter to the Bank, it must be the duty of the Se- 
cretary of the Treasury to withdraw the deposites 
of the public money from that institution, whenever 
the change would in any degree promote the pub- 
lie interest. It is not necessary that the deposites 
should be unsafe in order to justify the removal. 
The authority to remove is not limited to such a 
contingency. The Bank may be perfectly solvent, 
and prepared to meet promptly all demands upon 
it. It may have been faithful in the performance* of 
its duties, and yet the public interest may require 
the deposites to be withdrawn. And as that cannot 



133 



THE EXAMINER, 



be done without the action of this Department, the March, 1836; and for two years after the tennina- 
Secretary of the Treasury woold betray the trust ition of the charter, it is authorized to use the coc- 
confided to him, if he did not cause the deposites to I porate name for the final settlement and liquidation 
be made elsewhere, whenever the change would ' of the affairs and accounts of the corporation, and 



advance the public interests, or public convenience. 
The safety of the deposites,— the ability of the 
Bank to meet its engagements — its fidelity in the 
performance of its obligations— are only a part of 
the considerations by which his judgment must be 
guided. The general interest and convenience of 
the people mutt regulate his conduct. 

This principle was distinctly asserted by Mr. 
Crawford, when he was Secretary of the Treasury, 
soon after the Bank, obtained its charter. In a post* 
script to his letter to the President of the Mecha- 
nics Bank of New York, dated February 13th, 1819, 
he says: ••The Secretary of the Treasury will al- 
ways be disposed to support the credit of the State 
Banks, and will invariably direct transfers from the 
deposites of the public money in aid of their legiti- 
mate exertions to maintain their credit. But as the 
proposition of the Bank of the United States ex- 
cludes the idea of pressure on its part, no measure 
of that nature appears to be necessary at this time." 
Other passages in the correspondence of Mr. Craw- 
ford with the Banks, sbout the period above men- 
tioned, might be referred to, equally indicating the 
same opinion, and at that day no doubt seems to 
have been entertained of the power or of the duty 
of the Secretary in relation to this subject. It does 
not appear to have been then even suggested, that 
the right of removal depended on the solvency of the 
Bank, or the safety of the public money committed 
to its custody. On the contrary, in the passage 
above quoted, the superior safety of the State Banks 
is by no means regarded as necessary to give him 
the right to make the transfer to them. For he 
declares that he will give the deposites to the State 
Banks, on account of their weakness, and to protect 
them from the Bank of the United States, if by 
means of its superior strength, it sought to oppress 
them. Nor can any distinction be taken between 
the transfer of the whole sum, remaining on depo- 
site. The language of the charter recognizes no 
such distinction, and the principle asserted by Mr. 
Crawford, would have led him to the removal of the 
whole amount of the public money to the State 
Banks, if a pressure on the part of the Bank of the 
United States had rendered such a measure neces- 
sary, in order to support the State Banks in their 
legitimate exertions to maintain their credit. 

The language of the law, therefore, and the usage 
and practice of the Government under it, establish 
the following principles! 

1st. That the power of removal was intended 
to be reserved exclusively to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, and that according to the stipulations 
in the charter, CongTess could not direct it to be 
done. 

2nd. That the power reserved to the Secretary 
of the Treasury, does not depend for its exercise 
merely on the safety of the public money in the 
hands of the Bank, nor upon the fidelity with which 
it has conducted itself, but he has the right to re- 
move the deposites, and it is his duty to remove them 
whenever the public interest or convenience will be 
promoted by the change. 
Taking these two principles ss unquestionable, I 

Sroceed to state the reasons which induced me to 
elieve that it was necessary for the interest and 
convenience of the people that the Bank of the 
United States should cease to be the depository of 
taw public money. 

The charter of the Bank will expire, according to 
the existing law on the subject, on the third of 



for the sale and disposition of their estate—- but not 
for any other purpose. It is the duty of the Execu- 
tive Department of the Government to exercise the 
powers conferred on them, according to the existing 
laws, and they cannot be allowed to speculate on 
the chances of future chsnges by the Legislative 
authority. Perhaps there may be cases in which 
the discretion vested in an Executive Department 
might with propriety be in some degree influenced 
by the expectation of future legislation. But they 
must be cases in which the principles of justice, or 
the public interest manifestly call for an alteration 
of the law, or where some expression of the public 
opinion has strongly indicated that a change will 
probably be made. But where nothing of this kind 
exists, an Executive officer of the Government is 
not authorized to regulate a discretion, which the 
law has entrusted to him, upon the assumption that 
the law will be changed. 

In deciding upon the course which it was my 
duty to pursue in relation to the deposites, I did not 
feel myself justified in anticipating the renewal of 
the charter on either of the above mentioned grounds. 
It is very evident that the Bank has no claim to re- 
newal, founded on the justice of Congress. For in* 
dependently of the many serious and insurmountable 
objections, which its own conduct has furnished, it 
cannot be supposed that the grant to this corpora* 
tion of exclusive privileges, at the expense of 
the rest of the community, for twenty years, can 
give it a right to demand the still further enjoyment 
of its profitable monopoly. Neither could I set 
upon the assumption that the public interest requir- 
ed the re-charter of the Bank; because I am firmly 
persuaded that the law which created this corpora- 
tion in many of its provisions, is not warranted by 
the Constitution, and that the existence of such a 
powerful monied monopoly, is dangerous to the li- 
berties of the people, and to the purity of our poli- 
tical institutions. 

The manifestations of public opinion, instead sf 
being favourable to a renewal, have been decidedly 
to the contrary. And 1 have always regarded the 
result of the last election of the President of the 
United States, as the declaration of a majority of 
the people that the charter ought not to be renewed. 
It is not necessary to state here, what is now a mat- 
ter of history. The question of the renewal of the 
charter was introduced into the election by the cor- 
poration itself. Its voluntary application to Con- 
gress for the renewal of its charter four years before 
it expired, and upon the eve of the election of the 
President, was understood on all sides, as bringing 
forward that question for incidental decision, at the 
then approaching election. It was accordingly ar- 
gued on both sides, before the tribunal of the peo- 
ple, and their verdict pronounced against the Bank, 
by the election of the candidate who was known to 
hive been always inflexibly opposed to it. 

Under these circumstances, I could not have been 
justified, upon either of the grounds above men- 
tioned, in anticipating any change in the existing 
laws in relation to the Bank, and as the act of Con- 
gress which created the corporation, limits its dura- 
tion to the third of March 1836, it became my duty 
as Secretary of the Treasury, in executing the trust 
confided to me, under the law, to look to that period 
of time as the termination of its corporate existence. 
I had no sufficient grounds for presuming that the 
law would-be altered in this respect, by future legis- 
lation, and a new charter be granted to the Bsnk. 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



133 



It was therefore incumbent upon me, in discharging- 
my official duties, to act upon the assumption, that 
this corporation would not continue in being after 
the'' time above specified. And in this state of 
thing*, without any reference to the manner in 
which the Bank has conducted itself, it became ne- 
cessary to decide whether the deposites ought to 
remain in the Bank until the end of its corporate 
life, or be removed at some earlier period. In form- 
ing my opinion on this subject, I could only inquire 
which of these measures would most conduce to the 
public good. 

It is obvious, that the interests of the country 
would not be promoted, by permitting the deposites 
of the public money to continue in the Bank until 
its charter expired. Judging from the past, it is 
highly probable that they will always amount to 
several millions of dollars. It would evidently pro- 
duce serious inconvenience, if such a large sum 
were left in possession of the Bank until the last 
moment of its existence) and then be suddenly 
withdrawn, when its immense circulation is return- 
ing 1 upon it, to be redeemed, and its private deposi- 
tors removing their funds into other institutions. 
The ability of the Bank, under such circumstances, 
to be prompt in its payments to the Government, 
may be well doubted, even if the ultimate safety of 
the deposites could be relied upon. Besides, the 
principal circulating medium now in the hands of 
the people, and the one most commonly used in the 
exchanges between distant places, consists of the 
notes of the Bank of the United States and its nu- 
merous branches. The sudden withdrawal of its 
present amount of circulation, or its sud Jen depre- 
ciation, before any other sound and convenient cur- 
rency was substituted for it, would certainly produce 
extensive evils, and be sensibly felt among all classes 
of society. 

It is well understood that the superior credit here- 
tofore enjoyed by the no.es of the Bank of the Unit- 
ed States, was not founded on any particular confi- 
dence in its management or solidity. It was occa- 
sioned altogether bv the agreement on behalf of the 
public in the act of incorporation, to receive them 
in all payments to the United States? and it was this 
pledge on the part of the Government which gave 
general currency to the notes payable at remote 
Branches. The same engagement, in favour of any 
other monied institution, would give its notes equal 
credit, and make them equally convenient for the 
purposes of commerce. But this obligation on the 
part of the UnitedStates, will cease on the 3d of 
March, 1836, when the charter expires; and as soon 
as this happens, all the outstand ng notes of the 
Bank will lose the peculiar value they now possess, 
and the notes payable at distant places become as 
much depreciated as the notes of local Banks. And 
if, in the mean time, no other currency is substituted 
in its place by common consent, it is easy to foresee 
the extent of the embarrassment which would be 
caused by the sudden derangement of the circulat- 
ing medium. It would be too late at that time to 
provide substitute, which would ward off the evil. 
The notes of the Bank of the United Ststes in cir- 
culation on the second of September last, which was 
the date of the latest return before me when the 
order for removal was given, amounted to $18,413,- 
287 07, scattered in every part of the United States. 
And if a safe and sound currency were immediately 
provided, on the termination of the charter, to take 
the places of these notes, "it would still require time, 
to bring it into general use, and in the interim, the 
people would be subjected to all the inconveniences 
and losses which necessarily arise from an unsound 
state of the currency. The evil would be to great 



and the distress so general, that it might even com- 
pel Congress, against its wishes, to re-charter the 
Bank; and perhaps more effectual means could hard- 
ly be devised, for insuring the renewal of the char- 
ter. It is evident that the state of things so much 
to be deprecated can only be avoided by timely pre- 
paration, and the continuance of the deposites can 
only be justified by the determination to renew the 
charter. The State Banks can, 1 have no doubt, fur- 
nish a general circulating medium, quite as uniform 
in value, as that which has been afforded by the 
Bank of the United States. Probably more so. For 
it is well known, that in some of the cities, the 
Branches of the Bank have been in the habit, when- 
ever they thought proper, of refusing to honour the 
notes of their own Bank, payable at other Branches, 
when they were not offered in discharge of a debt 
due to the' United States. But a currency founded 
on the notes of State Banks could not be suddenly 
substituted for that heretofore furnished by the 
Bank of the United States, and take the place of it 
at the same moment, in every part of the Union. It 
is essential that the change should be gradual} and 
sufficient time should be allowed to suffer it to 
make its way by the ordinary operations of com- 
merce, without requiring a hasty and violent effort. 
In this view of the subject, it would be highly in- 
judicious to suffer the deposites to remain in' the 
Bank of the United States until the close of its cor- 
porate existence. And as they cannot be withdrawn 
without the action of the Secretary of the Treasury, 
it must unavoidably become his duty at some period 
of time, to exercise the power of removal. Laying 
aside, therefore, for the present, all the considera- 
tions which the misconduct of the Bank has furnish- 
ed, the question presented to this department was, 
how long could the removal be delayed consistently 
with the public interests? It is a question of time 
only. The duty must be performed at some period; 
and could not be altogether omitted, without justly 
incurring a heavy responsibility to the community, 
for all the consequences that might follow. And it 
is, I think, apparent that the measure was delayed as 
long as was compatible with the interests of the peo- 
ple of the United States. 

The monthly statement of the Bank of the second 
of September last, before referred to, shows that the 
notes of the Bank and its branches then in circulation 
amounted to $18,413,287 07, and that its discounts 
amounted to the sum of #62,653,359 59. The im- 
mense circulation above stated, pervading every part 
of the United States, and most commonly used in the 
business of commerce, between distant places, must 
all be withdrawn from circulation, when the charter' 
expires. If any of the notes then remain in the hands 
of individuals remote from the branches at which 
they are payable, their immediate depreciation will 
subject the holders to certain loss. Those payable in 
the principal commercial cities, would perhaps retain 
nearly their nominal value; but this would not be the 
case with the notes of the interior branches, remote 
from the great marts oT trade; and the statements of 
the Bank will show that a great part of its circulation 
is composed of notes of this description. The Bank 
would seem to have taken pains to introduce into 
common use such a description of paper, as it could 
depreciate or raise to its par value, as best suited to 
its own views* and it is of the first importance to the 
interest of the public, that these notes should all be 
taken out of circulation before they depreciate in the 
hands of the individuals who hold them; and they 
ought to be withdrawn gradually, and their places 
supplied, as they retire, by the currency which will 
become the substitute for them. How long will it re- 
quire for the ordinary operations of commerce, and 



184 



THE EXAMINER, 



the reduction of discounts of the Bank, to withdraw 
the amout of circulation before mentioned, without 
giving a shock to the currency, or producing a dis- 
tressing pressure upon the community? I am con- 
vinced that the time which remained for the charter 
to run after the first of October, (the day on which 
the first order for removal took effect,) was not more 
than was proper to accomplish the object, with safety 
to the community. And if it had depended upon my 
judgment at an earlier period, I should have pre- 
ferred, and should have taken, a longer time. Enough 
however,isyet left,provided no measures are adopted 
by the Bank, for the purpose of inflicting unnecessary 
suffering upon the country. Apart therefore, from 
any considerations arising out of the conduct of the 
Bank, and looking merely to the near approach of 
the day when it would cease to exist, the withdraw- 
al of the deposites appeared to be required by the 
public interest, at the time when the first order for 
removal was given by this department. 

This opinion is confirmed by the ground taken in 
favour of the renewal of the charter at December 
session, 1831. It was then urged that the short pe- 
riod which yet remained of its corporate existence 
and the necessity of preparing to wind up its con- 
cerns, if the charter was not to be renewed, made it 
. proper that the question should at once be decided. 
Very little more than half of that time yet remains. 
And although I do not concur in the opinions then 
expressed, and believe that the application was ill- 
timed, and premature, yet the arguments then re- 
lied on by many whose judgment is entitled to 
respect, afford strong grounds for concluding, that 
the measure now adopted is not objectionable on the 
score of time, and if the deposites were not to con- 
tinue in the Bank until the termination of its charter, 
their withdrawal could not with propriety be longer 
delayed. 

There is, however, another view of this subject, 
which in my opinion, made it impossible further to 

?ostpone the removal. About the first of December, 
832, it had been ascertained that the piesent Chief 
Magistrate was re-elected, and that his decision 
against the Bank had thus been sanctioned by the 
people. At that time, the discounts of the Bank 
amounted to $61,571,625 66. Although the issue, 
which the Bank took so much pains to frame, had 
now been tried, and the decision pronounced against 
it, yet no steps were taken to prepare for its ap- 
proaching end. On the contrary, it proceeded to 
enlarge its discounts; and on the second of August, 
1833, they amounted to $64,160,349 14, being an 
increase of more than two and a half millions in the 
eight months immediately following the decision 
against them. And so far from preparing to arrange its 
affairs, with a view to wind up its business, it seem- 
ed, from this course of conduct, to be the design of 
the Bank to put itself in such an attitude, that at the 
close of its charter, the country would be compelled 
to submit to its renewal, or to bear all the conse- 
quences of a currency suddenly deranged, and also 
a severe pressure for the immense outstanding claims 
which would then be due to the corporation. While 
the Bank was thus proceeding to enlarge its dis- 
counts, an agent was appointed by the Secretary of 
the Treasury to inquire upon what terms the State 
Banks would undertake to perform the services to 
the Government which have heretofore been ren- 
dered by the Bank of the United States j and also 
to ascertain their condition in four of the principal 
commercial cities, for the purpose of enabling the 
department to judge whether they would be safe 
and convenient depositories for the public money. 
It was deemed necessary that suitable fiscal agents 
should be prepared in due season < and it was proper 



that time should be allowed them to make arrange- 
ments with one another throughout the country, in 
order that they might perform their duties in con- 
cert, and in a manner that would be convenient and 
acceptable to the public. It was essential that a 
change so important in its character, and so exten- 
sive in its operation upon the financial concerns of 
the country, should not be introduced without time* 
ly preparation. 

There was nothing in this proceeding, nor in the 
condition of the Bank, which should at that time 
have produced a sudden and entire change of its 
policy. For, in addition to the ordinary receipts 
from bonds given on account of previous importa- 
tions, the season was at hand when the cash duties 
on woollens might well be expected to be very pro- 
ductiue< and from these two sources the receipts 
from the customs were in fact unusually large, and 
the amount of the public deposites in the Bank pro- 
portionably heavy. The capacity of the Bank, there- 
fore, at this time, to afford facilities to commerce, 
was not only equal, but greatly superior, to what it 
had been for some time before* and the nature of 
the inquiry made of the State Banks, confined as it 
was, to the four principal commercial cities, showed 
that the immediate withdrawal of the entire depo- 
sites from the Bank, so as to distress it, was not con- 
templated. And if any apprehensions to the contrary 
were felt by the Bank, an inquiry at this department 
would no doubt have been promptly and satisfacto- 
rily answered. And certainly it was the duty of the 
Bank, before it adopted a course oppressive to the 
whole country, to bo sure of the ground on which 
it acted. It can never be justified for inflicting a 
public injury, by alleging mistaken opinions of its 
own, when the means of obtaining information abso- 
lutely certain, were so obviously within its reach. 
The change was always designed to be gradual; and 
the conduct of the Bank itself has since compelled 
me to remove a portion of the deposites earlier than 
was originally intended. There was nothing, there- 
fore, in the inquiry before mentioned, nor in the 
views of the Executive department, nor in the con- 
dition of the Bank, which justified a sudden and op- 
pressive change in its policy. 

The situation of the mercantile classes, also ren- 
dered the usual aids of the Bank more than ever ne- 
cessary to sustain them in their business. Their 
bonds for previous importations were, as before stat- 
ed, constantly becoming due, and heavy cash duties 
were almost daily to be paid. The demands of the 
public upon those engaged in commerce, were con- 
sequently unusually large, and they had a just claim 
to the most liberal indulgence from the fiscal agent 
of the Government, which had for so many years 
been reaping harvests of profits from the deposites 
of the public money. But the Bank about this time 
changed its course. 

By the monthly statement of the Bank, dated 2d 
August, 1833, it appears that its loans and domestic 
bills of exchange, purchased and on hand, amounted 
to $64*160,349 14 

By the monthly statement of the 2d 

September, 1833, they appear to 

have been 62,653,359 59 

By that of the 2d of October, 1833, 

they were 60,094,202 93 

Reduction in two months 4,066,146 21 - 

By the same papers it appears that 
the public deposites, including 
those for the reduction of the 
public debt, the Treasurer's; and 
those of the public offices, were, 
in August $7,599,931 47 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



185 



In September 
In October 



Increase of the public deposites in 

Uo months #2,268,504 11 



Total amount collected from the 

community $5,334,650 32 

Thus upwards of six millions of dollars were with- 
drawn from the business of the country by the Bank 
of the United States, in the course of two months. 
This of itself must have produced a pressure on the 
money market, affecting all commercial transactions. 
But the curtailment of the Bank accommodations of 
the community, was much larger. The policy adopt* 
ed by the Bank of the United States, compelled ihe 
State Banks to adopt the same course, in self-defence, 
and the Bank of the United States appears to have 
resorted to the expedient of drawing from the State 
Banks the balances due, in specie, and to have 
hoarded up the article in its own vaults. 
In August, 1833, the Bank had in 

specie $10,023,677 38 

In September 10,207,649 20 

In October 10,663,441 51 



Showing an increase of specie in 

two months, of $639,764 13 

This sum, it is believed, was chiefly drawn from 
the State Banks. To fortify themselves, those banks 
were compelled to call on their debtors and curtail 
their accommodations; and so large a proportion of 
these calls are always paid in their own notes, that 
to obtain $100,000 in specie, they are probably 
obliged to call for four or five times that amount. 
To replace the specie, taken from them by the Bank 
of the United States, and to provide for their own 
safety, the State Banks, therefore, must have cur. 
tailed from two to three millions of dollars. On the 
Whole, it is a fair estimate, that the collections from 
the community, during those two months, without 
any corresponding return, did not fall much short of 
nine millions of dollars. As might have been ex- 
pected, complaints of a pressure upon the money 
market were heard from every quarter. The ba- 
lances due from the State Banks had, during the 
same time, increased from $368,969,98 to 2,288,573 
19, and from the uncertain policy of the Bank, it 
was apprehended they might suddenly be called for 
in specie. The State Banks, so far from being able 
to relieve the community, found themselves under 
the necessity of providing for their own safety. 

A very large proportion of the collections of the 
Bank in August and September, were in Philadel- 
phia, New York and Boston.' 
In August and September, the cur- 
tailment in Philadelphia was $195,548 69 
Increase of public deposites 646,846 80 

Actual collections by the Bank 
Increase of public deposites in New 



York 
Deduct increase of loans 

Actual collections by the Bank 
Curtailment in Boston 
. was $717,264 45 

increase of public de- 
posites 48,069 88 

Actual collections by the Bank 



Total collection in the three cities $2,673,031 68 

It will be perceived, that it was solely through the 

• increase of the public deposites, that the Bank raised 



9,182,173 18 balances against the State Banks in New York, and 
9,868,435 58 was placed in a situation to take from them, at its 
— — — 1 pleasure, large sums in specie. And when it is con- 
sidered that those curtailments and collections of the 
Bank of the United States, necessarily compelled the 
State Banks to curtail also, we shall be at no loss to 
perceive the cause of the pressure which existed in 
the commercial cities about the end of the month of 
September. It was impossible that the commercial 
community could have sustained itself much longer, 
under such a policy. In the two succeeding months, 
the collections of the Bank would probably have ex- 
ceeded five millions more, and the State Banks would 
have been obliged to curtail in an equal sum. The 
reduction of bank accommodations, to the amount of 
nineteen millions of dollars, in four months, must 
have almost put an end to trade; and before the first 
of October, this pressure in the principal commercial 
cities had become so intense, that it could not have 
been endured much longer, without the most serious 
embarrassment. It was then daily increasing, and 
from the best informat ; on that I have been able lb 
obtain, I am persuaded, that if the public moneys 
received for revenue, had continued to be deposited 
in the Bank of the United States for two months 
longer, and it had adhered to the oppressive system 
of policy which it had pursued during the two pre- 
ceding months, a wide-spread scene of bankruptcy 
and ruin must have followed. There was no alter- 
native, therefore, for the Treasury Department, but 
to act at once, or to abandon the object altogether. 
Duties of the highest character, would not permit 
the latter course, and I did not hesitate promptly to 
resort to the former. 

1 have stated the condition of the mercantile class- 
es at the time of the removal, to explain why it was 
impossible to postpone it even for a short period. 
Under other circumstances, 1 should have been dis- 
posed to direct the removal to take effect at a dis- 
tant day, so as to give Congress an opportunity of 
prescribing, in the mean time, the places of d e po- 
sit e, and of regulating the securities proper to be 
taken. It is true, that the power given to the Se- 
cretary of the Treasury to remove the deposites 
from the Bank of the United States, necessarily car- 
ries with it the right to select the places where they 
shall afterwards be made. The power of removal 
cannot be exercised without placing them ele where; 
and the right to select is therefore contained in the 
right to remove. It is also true, that in my judg- 
ment, as has been already stated, the public interest 
would have been advanced, if the change had taken 
place at an earlier period. Yet as a few months 
would, in ordinary times, have made no very serious 
difference, and the removal had already been de- 
layed until the meeting of Congress was approach- 
ing, I should have preferred executing the measure 
in a manner that would have enabled the Legislature 
to act on the subject, in advance of the actual remo- 
val, if it had deemed it proper to do so. But the 
•oftddbt of the Bank left me no choice, except be- 
tween the immediate removal, and its final relin- 
quishment. For, if the measure had then been 
suspended, to be resumed at a future time, it was x 
in the power of the Bank to produce the same evil 
whenever it was again attempted. Putting aside, 
therefore, from the view of the subject which I am 
now presenting, all the inducements which grew 
out of the misconduct of the Banki and regarding 
only its approaching end, and the intensity of the 
pressure it was then producing, no further delay was 
admissible. 

The facts and reasons above stated, appear to have 
established the following propositions: 

1st It was the duty of this department not to aft 



$842,395 49 

1,396,597 24 
331,295 38 



$1,065,301 86 



765,334 33 



136 



THE EXAMINER, 



upon the assumption, that the legislative power 
would hereafter change the law, in relation to the 
Bank of the United States; and it was bound to regu- 
late its conduct upon the principle that the existence 
of this corporation would terminate on the third of 
March, 1836. 

2d. The public interest required that the deposit es 
of public money should not continue to be made in 
the Bank of the United States, until the close of its 
existence; but should be transferred to some other 
place, at some period prior to that time. 

3d. The power of removal being reserved exclu- 
sively to the Secretary of the Treasury, by the terms 
of the charter, his action was necessary in order to 
effect it, and the depositee could not, according to 
the agreement made by Congress with the stockhold- 
ers, have been removed by the legislative branch of 
the Government, until the charter of the Bank was 
at an en '• 

4th. The near approach of the time when the 
charter would expire, as well as the condition of the 
mercantile community, produced by the conduct of 
the Bank, rendered the removal indispensable, at 
the time it was begun; and it could not have been 
postponed to a later day*, without injury to the coun- 
try. 

Acting on these principles, I should have felt my- 
self bound to follow the course I have pursued in 
relation to the deposites, without any reference to 
the misconduct of the Bank. But there are other 
reasons for the removal, growing out of the manner 
in which the affairs of the Bank have been managed, 
and its money applied, which would have made it 
my duty to withdraw the deposites, at any period of 
the charter. 

It will, I presume, be admitted on all hands, that 
the Bank was incorporated in order to create an use- 
ful and convenient public agent, to assist the Govern- 
ment in its fiscal operations. The act of incorpora- 
tion was not designed merely as an act of favour to 
the stockholders, nor were exclusive privileges given 
to them for the purpose of enabling them to attain 
political power, or to amass wealth at the expense of 
the people of the United States. The motive for 
establishing this vast monopoly, was the hope that it 
would conduce to the public good. It was created 
to be the agent of the public, to be employed for the 
benefit of the people, and the peculiar privileges and 
means of private emolument given to it by the act of 
incorporation, were intended as rewards for the ser- 
vices it was expected to perform. It was never sup- 
posed, that its own separate interests would be volun- 
tarily brought into collision with those of the public. 
And stHl less was it anticipated, that it would seek, 
by its money, to obtain political power, and control 
the action of the Government, either by the favours 
it can shower, or the fear of its resentment. Its 
duty was simply that of an agent, bound to render 
certain services to its principal, in consideration of 
the advantages granted to it. And like ever$ other 
public agent or officer, its own separate interests 
were subordinate to its duty to the public. It was 
bound to consult the general good, rather than its 
private emolument, if they should happen to come 
into conflict with one another. If therefore, it sought 
to obtain political power, or to increase its gains, by 
means which would probably bring distress on the 
community, it violated its duty, and perverted, to 
the public injury, the powers which were given to 
be used for the public good. And in such an event, 
it was the duty of the public servants, to whom the 
trust was reserved, to dismiss it, so far as might law- 
fully be done, from the agency it had thus abused. 
Regarding the Bank, therefore, as the agent of the 
United States, and bound by the duties, and liable 



to the obligations which ordinarily belong to the re- 
lation of principal and agent, except where the char- 
ter has otherwise directed, I proceed to state the 
circumstances, which show that it had justly forfeit- 
ed the confidence of the Government, and that it 
ought not to have been further trusted as the depo- 
sitory of public money. 

The United States, by the charter, reserved the 
right of appointing five directors of the Bank. It was 
intended by this means, not only to provide guardians 
for the interests of the public, in the general admi- 
nistration of its affairs, but also to have faithful offi- 
cers, whose situation would enable them to become 
intimately acquainted with all the transactions of the 
institution, and whose duty it would be, to apprise 
the proper authorities of any misconduct, on the 
part of the corporation, likely to affect the public 
interest. The fourth fundamental article of the con- 
stitution of the corporation, declares, that not less 
than seven directors shall constitute a board for the 
transaction of business. At these meeting* of the 
board, the directors on the part of the United States 
had, of course, a right to be present, and, conse- 
quentlv, if the business of the corporation. had been 
transacted in the manner which the law requires, 
there was abundant security that nothing could be 
done, injuriously affecting the interests of the peo- 
ple, without being immediately communicated to the 
public servants, who were authorized to apply the 
remedy. And if the corporation has so arranged its 
concerns, as to conceal from the public directors 
some of its most important operations, and has there- 
by destroyed the safeguards which were designed to 
secure the interests of the United States, it would 
seem to be very clear, that it has forfeited its claim 
to confidence, and is no longer worthy of trust. In 
the ordinary concerns of life, among individuals, no 
prudent man would continue to place his funds in 
the hands of an agent, after he discovered that he 
was studiously concealing from him the manner in 
which they were employed. The public money 
ought not to be guarded with less vigilance than that 
of an individual. And measures of concealment, on 
the part of this corporation, are not only contrary to 
the duties of its agency, but are also in direct viola- 
tion of the law, to which it owes its corporate ex- 
istence. And the same misconduct, which, in the 
case of private individuals, would induce a prudent 
man to dismiss an agent from his employment, would 
require a similar course towards the fiscal agent of 
the Government, by the officer to whom the law has 
entrusted the supervision of its conduct, and given 
the power of removal. 

Tried by these principles, it will be found that the 
conduct of the Bank made it the duty of the Secre- 
tary of the Treasury to withdraw from its ca/e the 
public funds. 

1st. Instead of a board constituted of at least seven 
directors, according to the charter, at which those 
appointed by the United States have a right to be 
present, many of the most important money transac- 
tions of the Bank have been, and still are, placed 
under the control of a committee denominated the 
Exchange Committee, of which no one of the public 
directors, has been allowed to be a member since 
the commencement of the present year. This com- 
mittee is not even elected by the board, and the pub- 
lic directors have no voice in their appointment. 
They are chosen by the President of the Bank, and 
the business of the institution, which ought to be 
decided on by the Board of Directors, is, in many 
instances, transacted by this committee, and no one 
has a right to be present at their proceedings but 
the President and those whom he shall be pleased 
to name as members of this committee. Thus loans 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



137 



are made, unknown at the time to a majority of the 
board, and paper discounted, which might probably 
be rejected at a regular meeting of the directors, 
the moat important operations of the Bank are some- 
times resolved on, and executed by this committee; 
and its measures are, it appears, designedly, and by 
regular system, so arranged as to conceal from the 
officers of the Government, transactions in which 
the public interests are deeply involved. And this 
fact alone furnishes evidence too strong to be resist- 
ed, that the concealment of certain important opera- 
tions of the corporation, from the officers of the 
Government, is one of the objects intended to be 
accomplished by means of this committee. The 
plain words of the charter are violated, in order to 
deprive the people of the United States of one of 
the principal securities which the law had provided 
to guard their interests, and to render more safe the 
public money entrusted to the care of the Bank. 
Would any individual of ordinary discretion, continue 
bis money in the hands of an agent who had violated 
bis instructions? Would he continue his property in 
bis hands, when he had not only ascertained that 
concealment had been practised towards him, but 
when the agent avowed his determination to conti- 
nue in the same course, and to withhold from him, 
as far as he could, all knowledge of the manner in 
which he was employing his funds? If an individual 
would not be expected to continue his confidence, 
under such circumstances, upon what principle could 
a different line of conduct be required from the of- 
ficers of the United States charged with the care of 
the public interests? The public money is surely 
entitled to the same care and protection as that of 
an individual, and if the latter would be bound, in 
justice to himself, to withdraw his money from the 
hands of an agent, thus regardless of his duty, the 
same principle requires that the money of the United 
States should, under the like circumstances, be 
withdrawn fom the hands of their fiscal agent. And 
as the power of withdrawal was confided to the Se- 
cretary of the Treasury, it was his duty to remove 
it on this ground alone, if no other cause of com- 
plaint had existed against the Bank. The conduct 
of the Bank, in relation to the three per cent, stock 
of the United States, is a memorable instance of the 
power exercised in secret by the Exchange Com- 
mittee, and the abuses to which it is incident The 
circumstances attending that transaction, have been 
so fully laid before Congress and the public, that it 
is useless to repeat them .here. It was a case in 
which this committee not only managed in secret a 
monied transaction of vast amount, intimately con- 
nected with the interests of the people of this coun- 
try, but one where the measures of the Government 
were thwarted by the Bank, and the nation compell- 
ed to continue for a time, liable for a debt, which it 
was ready and desired to extinguish. 

Nor is this the only measure of the kind which has 
come officially to my knowledge. I have the honour 
to present herewith a report made by three of the 
public directors to the Eresidentof the United 
States, on the 22d of April, 1833, (marked A) in 
which, in compliance with his request, that they 
would communicate to him such information as was 
within their personal knowledge relative to these 
unusual proceedings of the Board of Directors, they 
. disclose the exceptionable manner in which the 
power conferred by law on the board, has been sur- 
rendered to the Exchange Committee ? that this has 
been done evidently with the design of preventing 
a proper and contemplated examination into the ac- 
counts of persons whose paper was offered for dis- 
count* that a minority of the board, apparently suffi- 
cient to have prevented the loan, if the security was 



bad, were deprived of their votes upon the question? 
and that the long-established by-laws of the institution 
were set aside for the purpose of carrying these de- 
signs into effect with less difficulty or embarrassment. 
If proceedings like this are sanctioned by the con- 
stituted authorities of the United States, the ap- 
pointment of directors on their part is an idle cere- 
mony, and affords no safeguard to the public treasure 
in the custody of the Bank. And even legislative 
enactments in relation to this corporation, are of but 
little value, if it may, at its pleasure, disregard one 
of the fundamental articles of its constitution, and 
transfer to a secret committee, the business which, 
by law, ought to be transacted by the board. It is 
scarcely necessary, in presenting this document to 
the consideration of Congress, to notice an objection 
which has been sometimes put forward against the 
publication of any proceedings which relate to the 
accounts of private individuals. The circumstances 
detailed, are the regular and official transactions of 
the Board of Directors, nor do they involve the pri- 
vate debtor and creditor account of persons dealing 
with the Bank, which is alone included in the dis- 
tinction taken by the charter in regard to private 
accounts. If the argument thus brought forward 
were a sound one, there could be no such thing as 
an examination of any value into the conduct of the 
Bank. Because the business of the Bank being with 
individuals, its misconduct could never be shown 
without bringing before the public the individual 
transaction in which the conduct of the Bank was 
impeached. And if it could make good the position, 
that such proceedings are never to be exposed to 
the public, because individuals are concerned in 
them, it would effectually shut out all useful exami- 
nation, and be enabled to apply its money to the 
most improper purposes, without detection or expo- 
sure. When its conduct is impeached, on the 
ground that it has used its great money power to 
obtain political influence, the investigation of the 
charge is, in its very nature, an inquiry into its trans* 
actions with individuals. And although the accounts 
brought forward on such occasions, may be the ac- 
counts of individuals, yet they are also the accounts 
of the Bank, and show its conduct And being the 
fiscal agent of the Government, with such immense 
power to be exercised, for good or for evil, the 
public safety requires, that all of its proceedings 
should be open to the strictest and most rigorous 
scrutiny. Its charter may be forfeited by its mis- 
conduct, and would be justly forfeited, if it sought 
to obtain political influence in the affairs of the na- 
tion. And yet such attempts on the part of the 
Bank, can never be proved, except by the examina- 
tion and disclosure of its dealings with individuals. 
2. It is not merely by its concealments that the 
Bank has proved itself regardless of the duties of its 
agency. Its own interests will be found to be its 
ruling principle — and the just claims of the public 
to be treated with but little regard when they have 
come into collision with the interests of the corpo- 
ration. This was but too plainly the case in the af- 
fair of the three per cents above mentioned. A 
recent instance proves its rule of action is not chang- 
ed in that respect. And the failure of the French 
Government to pay the bill drawn for the first in- 
stalment due by the treaty, has been made the oc- 
casion of endeavouring to obtain from the public, 
the sum of $158,842 77, to which no principle of 
justice appears to entitle it The money for which 
the bill was sold remained in the Bank. The expenses 
it incurred were of small amount, and these the Go- 
vernment are willing to pay. But the corporation, 
not content with the profits it was deriving from the 
millions of public money then tn its vaults, and which 



138 



jL 



THE EXAMINER, 



it was daily using* in its discounts, endeavours to 
convert the public disappointments into a gainful 
transaction for itself, and demands the large sum 
above mentioned, without pretending that it sus- 
tained any loss or inconvenience, commensurate 
with the amount it seeks to obtain from the Go- 
vernment. The fiscal agent of the public, attempts 
to avail itself of the unexpected disappointment of 
the principal, for the purpose of enhancing its own 
profits at the expense of the community. 

S. There is sufficient evidence to prove that the 
Bank has used its means with a view to obtain po- 
litical power, and thereby secure the renewal of its 
charter. 

The documents which have been heretofore laid 
before Congress, and are now on its files, will show 
that on the 31st of December, 1830, the aggregate 
debt due to the Bank, was $42,402,304 24, and that 
on the 31st of December, 18J1, it was $63,026,452 
93, being an extension of its loans, in a single year, 
of twenty millions of dollars, and an increase of 
nearly fifty per cent, on its previous accommoda- 
tions. 

And as if to leave us no room to doubt as to the 
motive of this extraordinary conduct, it continued to 
add rapidly to its loans, and on the first of May, 1832, 
while its petition for the renewal of its charter was 
yet pending before Congress, they amounted to 
$70,428,070 72, being an increase of $7,401,617 79, 
in the four preceding months, and making altoge- 
ther an addition of $28,025,766 48, in the short 
space of sixteen months, and being an extension of 
more than 66 per cent, on its previous loans. Such 
an increase, at such a period of its charter, is with- 
out example in the history of banking institutions. 
On the 31st of December, 1830, when its loans 
amounted, as above stated, to only $42,402^*04 24, 
the corporation had been in existence fourteen years. 
The sudden and great increase was made when the 
charter was drawing to a close, and when it had but 
little more than four years to run. It cannot be 
supposed that these immense loans were made from 
a confident expectation that the charter would be 
renewed. On the contrary, it is now a historical 
fact, that the Bank itself deemed the chances of re- 
newal so doubtful, that in the session of Congress 
beginning in December, 1831, it petitioned tor a 
recharter, and the reason generally assigned for 
pressing for a decision at that time, was the great 
extent of its business, and the necessity of pre- 
paring to bring it to a close, if the charter was not 
to be renewed. Thus, with but little more than 
four years to run, with doubtful chances of renewal, 
and aware of the necessity of beginning to arrange 
its vast transactions, it increases its loans in sixteen 
months, more than twenty-eight millions of dollars. 
Was this imprudence only ? It cannot be believed 
that those who managed its concerns could have 
committed such an oversight Can any proper rea- 
son be assigned for'this departure from the course 
which the interests of a monied corporation, as well 
as that of the country, obviously required. I am not 
aware that any sufficient justification has been of- 
fered. And this extraordinary increase of its loans, 
made in so short a space of time, at such a period of 
its charter, and upon the eve of a severely contested 
election of President, in which the Bank took an 
open and direct interest, demonstrates that it was 
using its money for the purpose of obtaining a hold 
upon the people of this country, in order to operate 
upon their fears, and to induce them, by the appre- 
hension of ruin, to vote against the candidate whom 
it desired to defeat. In other words, this great mo- 
nied corporation determined to enter the political 
arena, and to influence the measures of the Govern- 



ment, by causing its weight to be felt in the election 
I of its officers. 

But if the circumstances above stated were not, 
of themselves, sufficient to prove that the Bank had 
sought by ijs money to obtain political power, and 
to exercise by that means, a controlling influence 
on the measures of the Government, recent deve- 
lopments have furnished such proof as to leave no 
room for doubt. I have the honour to transmit here* 
with an official statement, (marked B) signed by 
four of the public directors in the Bank, showing 
at the same time, the unlawful manner in which its 
business is conducted, and the unwarrantable pur* 
poses to which its money has been, and still is, ap- 
plied. It will be seen, by the proceedings therein 
stated, that the whole capital of the Bank is, in ef- 
fect, placed at the disposal of the President of that 
institution. He is authorized to expend what he 
pleases in causing " to be prepared and circulated 
such documents and papers as may communicate to 
the people information in regard to the nature and 
operations of the Bank." And he may, therefore, 
under the very inde6nite terms of the resolutions, 
employ as many persons as be pleases,at such salaries 
as he thinks proper, either to prepare daily para- 
graphs for the newspapers in favour of the Bank, 
or to write pamphlets and essays to influence the 
public judgment. And he may even provide for 
the publications, by salaries to printers, or by pur- 
chasing presses and types, and placing them in the 
hands of agents employed and paid by the Bank. 
There is no limitation, short of the capital of the 
Bank, as to the sum of money he may thus expend 
in different parts of the United States. From the 
description of articles which appear to have been 
paid for under this resolution, it seems that the Pre- 
sident of the institution has supposed that publica- 
tions containing attacks upon officers of the Govern* 
ment, who are disposed to stand in the way of a re- 
newal of the charter, is one of the modes of " com- 
municating to the people information in regasd to 
the nature and operations of the Bank." This con- 
struction was, it appears, approved by the board, 
as they continued the authority in his hands, un- 
changed, after the manner in which a portion of the 
money had been applied, was laid before them. 
And we are left to conclude, that this institution is 
now openly in the field as a political partisan, and 
that one of its means of warfare, is the destruction 
of the political standing of those who are opposed 
to the renewal of the charter. The sum actually 
charged to the expenses, under this resolution, is 
sufficiently startling. 

How much more may have been already squan- 
dered, we are yet to learn, and the work of " pre- 
paring and circulating" such publications, is still, it 
is presumed, going on under the last resolution of 
the board. It is moreover, impossible to ascertain 
the specific purposes to which the money may in 
fact hare been applied, since vouchers are not re- 
quired to show the particular services for which it 
was given. 

With these positive proofs of the efforts of the 
Bank to obtain power, and to influence the mea- 
sures of the Government, I have not hesitated as to 
the path of duty. 

If, when this evidence was before me, I had failed 
to withdraw the deposites of public money from the 
Bank, it would have been lending the countenance 
and support of this department to measures which 
are but too well calculated to destroy the purity of 
our institutions, and endanger thereby the liberties 
of the people. It cannot be supposed that these 
expenditures are justifiable on the ground that the 
Bank has a right to defend itself, and that the money 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



189 



in question was therefore properly expended. Some 
of the items accounted for, sufficiently show in what 
manner it was endeavouring to defend its interests. 
It bad entered the field of political warfare, and as 
a political partisan, was endeavouring to defeat the 
election of those who were opposed to its views. It 
was striving by means of its money, to control the 
course of the Government, by driving from power 
those who were obnoxious to its resentment. Can it 
be permitted to a great roonied corporation to enter 
on auch a controversy, and then justify its conduct 
on the ground that it is defending its own interests? , 
The right of such an institution to interfere in the 
political concerns of the country, for any cause what- 
ever, can never be recognized; and a defence like 
this, on the part of the Bank, could not he tolerated 
even if the individual stockholders alone were thus 
using their own money to promote their own inte- 
rests. But it is not only the money of individuals, 
which is thus applied. The one-fifth of the capital 
of the Bank, amounting to seven millions of dollars, 
belongs to the United States, and the one-fifth of 
the money which has been expended, and is yet to 
be expended, under this resolution, is the property 
of the public, and does not belong to private indivi- 
duals. Yet the Board of Directors assert the right, 
not only to authorize the expenditure of the money 
of individual stockholders, in order to promote their 
individual interests, but have also, by the resolutions 
in question, taken upon themselves to give the like 
authority over money which belongs to the United 
States. 

Is an institution which deals thus with the money 
of the people, a proper depository for the public 
funds? When suca a right is openly claimed, and 
acted on by the Board of Directors, can the money 
of the United States be deemed safe in its hands? 
The same principle that would sanction the appli- 
cation of one portion of the public money to such 
purposes, would justify the like use of all that may 
oorne to its possession. The Board of Directors have 
no lawful authority to employ the money of the 
United States for such objects. So far as the nation 
is concerned in the character of the bank, the peo- 
ple, through their own representatives in Congress, 
can take care of their own rights, and vindicate the 
character of the Bank, if they think it is unjustly as- 
sailed. And they do not need the aid of persons 
employed and paid by the Bank, to learn whether 
Its charter be constitutional or not, nor whether the 
public good requires it to be renewed. Nor have 
they authorized the President and Directors of that 
institution, to expend the public money to enlighten 
them on this subject 

The resolution in question is, moreover, in direct 
violation of the act of Congress, by which this cor- 
poration was established. And it is difficult to ima- 
gine how the unlimited and irresponsible power 
over the money of the Bank, which the directors 
have given to their President, can be reconciled to 
the clause in their charter, which requires seven 
directors to form a board for the transaction of busi- 
ness. If the expenditure of money, for the purposes 
contemplated by the resolution, be a legitimate part 
of the business of the corporation, the board could 
not lawfully transfer it to one of its officers, unless 
they can by resolution, surrender into the hands of 
their President the entire power of the corporation, 
and commit to the. care ot a single individual, the 
corporate powers which the law has declared should 
be exercised by the Qoard of Directors. 

Chief Justice Marshall, in the case of the Bank of 
the United States vs. Dandridge, when speaking of 
the bonds required to be given by the Cashiers of 
the Bank, says: " It requires very little knowledge 



of the interior of banks, to know, that the interests 
of the stockholders are committed, to a very great ex- 
tent, to these and other officers." It was, and ought 
to have been, the intention of Congress, to secure 
the Government, which took a deep interest in this 
Institution, and to secure individuals who embark- 
ed their fortunes in it, on the faith of the Govern- 
ment, as far as possible from the mal- practices of its 
officers. "But the Directors of the Bank seem to 
have acted on principles directly opposite to those 
stated by the Chief Justice. And instead of endeav- 
ouring to secure, as far as possible," the public and 
individuals from the mal-practices of its officers, they 
place the funds of the Bank under the control of a 
single officer, from whom neither security nor spe- 
cific vouchere have been required. It is true, that 
in the opinion which the Chief Justice gave in this 
case, from which the above passage is quoted, 
he differed from the rest of the Court. But the dif- 
ference was on other principles, and not on the one 
above stated. 

In forming my judgement on this part of the case, 
I have not regarded the short time the charter has 
yet to run. But my conduct has been governed by 
considerations which arise altogether out of the 
course pursued by the Bank, and which would have 
equally influenced the decision of this Department, 
in relation to the deposites, if the Bank were now in 
the first years of its existence. And upon this view of 
the subject, the following propositions appear to be 
fully maintained. 

1st. That the Bank, being the fiscal agent of.the 
Government, in the duties which the law requires it 
to perform, is liable to all the responsibilities 
which attach to the character of agent, in ordinary 
cases of principal and agent among individuals, and 
it is therefore the duty of ihe officer of the govern- 
ment to whom the power has been entrusted, to 
withdraw from its possession the public funds when- 
ever its conduct towards its principal has been such 
as would induce a prudent man in private life, to 
dismiss his agent from bis employment. 

2d. That by means of its Exchange Committee, 
it has so arranged its business, aa to deprive the 
public servants of those opportunities of observing 
its conduct which the law had provided for the safe- 
ty of the public money confided to its care; and that 
there is sufficient evidence to show that this ar- 
rangement on the part of the Bank was deliberately 
planned, and is still persisted in, for the purpose of 
concealment. 

3d. That it has also, in the case of the three per 
cent, stock, and of the iftll of Exchange on France, 
endeavoured unjustly to advance its own interest at 
the expense of the interests and the just rights of 
the people of the United States. 

If these propositions be established, it is very clear 
that a man of ordinary prudence, in private life, 
would withdraw his funds from an agent who had 
thus behaved himself, in relation to his principal; 
and it follows, that it was the duty of the Secretary 
of the Treasury, to withdraw the funds of tjie Unit- 
ed States from the Bank. 

4th. That there is sufficient evidence to show that 
the Bank has been, and still is, seeking to obtain 
political power, and has used its money for the pur- 
pose of influencing the election of the public ser- 
vanta, and it was incumbent upon the Secretary of 
the Treasury, on that account, to withdraw from its 
possession the money of the United States, which 
it was thus using for improper purposes. Upon the 
whole, I have felt myself bound by the strongest 
obligations, to remove the deposites. The obliga- 
tion was imposed upon me by the near approach of 
the time when this corporation will cease to exist, as 



140 



THE EXAMINER, 



well as by the course of conduct which it has seen 
fit to pursue. \. 

The propriety of removing the depoaites being 
thus evident* and it being consequently my duty to 
•elect the places to which they were to be removed, 
it became necessary that arrangements should be 
immediately made with the new depositories of the 
public money, which would not only fender it safe, 
but would at the same time secure to the Govern- 
ment and to the community at large, the conveni- 
ences and facilities that were intended to be obtain- 
ed by incorporating the Bank of the United States. 
Measures were accordingly taken for that purpose, 
and copies of the contracts which have been made 
with the selected Banks and of the letters of in- 
structions to them from this Department are here- 
with submitted. The contracts with the Banks in 
the interior, are not precisely the same with those 
in the Atlantic cities. The difference between them 
arises from the nature of the business transacted by 
the Banks in these different places. The State 
Banks selected, are all institutions of high charac- 
ter and undoubted strength, and are under the ma- 
nagement and control of persons of unquestionable 
probity and intelligence. And in order to ensure 
the safety of the public money, each of them is re- 
quired, and has agreed to give security, whenever 
the amount of the deposite shall exceed the half of 
the amount of the capital actually paid in; and this 
Department has reserved to itself the right to de- 
mand security whenever it may think it advisable, 
although the amount on deposite may not be equal 
to the sum above stated. 

The Banks selected have also severally engaged 
to transmit money to any point at which it may be 
required by the directions of this Department, for 
the public service, and to perform all the services 
to the Government which were heretofore rendered 
by the Bank of the United States. And by agree- 
ments among themselves, to honour each other's 
notes and drafts, they are providing a general cur- 
rency at least as sound as that of the Bank of the 
United States, and will afford facilities to commerce, 
and in the business of domestic exchange, quite 
equal to any which the community heretofore en- 
joyed. There has not been yet sufficient time to 
perfect these arrangements; but enough has already 
been done, to show that even on the score of expe- 
diency, a Bank- of the United States is not necessary, 
either for the fiscal operations of the Government, 
or the public convenience! — and that every object 
which the charter to the present Bank was designed 
to attain, may be as effectually accomplished by the 
State Banks. And, if this can be done, nothing 
that is useful will be lost or endangered by the 
change, while much that is desirable will be gained 
by it For no one of these corporations will pos- 
sess that absolute, and almost unlimited dominion 
over the property of the citizens of the United 
States, which the present Bank holds; and which 
enables it at any moment, at its own pleasure, to bring 
distress upon any portion of the community, when- 
ever it may deem it useful to its interest to make 
its power felt The influence of each of the State 
Banks is necessarily limited to its own immediate 
neighbourhood, and they will be kept in check by 
the other local Banks. They will not therefore be 
tempted by the consciousness of power to aspire to 
political influence, nor likely to interfere in the 
elections of the public servants. They will more- 
over be managed by persons who reside in the 
midst of the people who are to be immediately af. 
feet ed by their measures, end they cannot be insen- 
sible or indiffeient to the opinions and peculiar 
interests of those by whom they are daily surround- 



ed; and with whom they are constantly associating* 
These circumstances always furnish strong safe- 
guards against an oppressive exercise of power, and 
forcibly recommend the employment of Sta .e Banks 
in preference to a Bank of the United States, with 
its numerous and distant Branches. ^ 

A corporation of the latter description, is con- 
stantly acting under the conviction of its immense 
power over the money concerns of the whole coun- 
try, and is dealing also with the fortunes and com- 
forts of men who are distant from them, and to 
whom they are personally strangers. The Direc- 
tors of the Bank are not compelled to hear daily 
the complaints and witness the sufferings of those 
who may be ruined by their proceedings. From the 
nature of man such an institution cannot always be 
expected to sympathize with the wants and feelings 
of those who are affected by its policy. And we 
ought not perhaps to be surprised, if a corporation 
like the Bank of the United States, from the feeling 
of rivalry, or from cold calculations of interest or 
ambition, should deliberately plan and execute a 
course of measures highly injurious and oppressive, 
in places where the Directors who control its con- 
duct have no local sympathies to restrain them. It 
is a fixed principle of our political institutions, to 
guard against the unnecessary accumulation of 
power over persons and property, in any hands. 
And no hands are less worthy to be trusted with it 
than those of a monied corporation. In the selec- 
tion therefore of the State Banks as the fiscal agents 
of the Government, no disadvantages appear to hare 
been incurred on the score of safety or convenience, 
or the general interests of the country, while much 
that is valuable will be gained by the change. I 
am, however, well aware of the vast power of the 
Bank of the United States, and of its ability to 
bring distress and suffering on the country. This is 
one of the evils of chartering a Bank with such an 
amount of capital, with the right of shooting its 
Branches into every part of the Union, so as to ex- 
tend its influence to every neighbourhood. The im- 
mense loan of more than twenty-eight millions of 
dollars suddenly poured out, chiefly in the Western 
States, in 1831, and in the first four months of 1832, 
sufficiently attests that the Bank is sensible of the 
power which its money gives it, and has placed 
itself in an attitude to make the people of the United 
States feel the weight of its resentment, if they pre- 
sume to disappoint the wishes of the corporation. 
By a severe curtailment, it has already made it pro- 
per to withdraw a portion of the money it holds on 
deposit and transfer it to the custody of the new 
fiscal agents, in order to shield the community from 
the injustice of the Bank of the United States. But 
I have not supposed that the course of the Govern- 
ment ought to be regulated by the fear of the power 
of the Bank. If such a motive could be allowed to 
influence the legislation of Congress, or the action 
of the Executive Departments of the Government, 
there is an end to the sovereignty of the people, 
and the liberties of the country are at once surren- 
dered at the feet of a monied corporation. They 
may now demand the possession of the public 
monies, or the renewal of the charter, and if these 
objects are yielded to them from apprehensions of 
their power, or from the suffering which rapid cur- 
tailments on their part are inflicting on the commu- 
nity /what may they not next require? Will sub- 
mission render such a corporation more forbearing 
in its course? What law may it not hereafter de- 
mand, that it will not, if it pleases, be able to en- 
force by the same means? 

These considerations need not, however, be 
pressed further in this report They are too obrious 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



141 



mod striking to need enforcement by argument. And 
I rely with confidence on the Representatives of 
this enlightened nation, to sustain a measure which 
the best interests of the country called for, and 
which had become absolutely necessary to preserve 
untainted its free institutions, and to secure the li- 
berties and happiness of the people. 
1 am, very respectively* 

Tour obedient servant, 

R. B. TANEY, 
Secretary of the Treasury, 



PHILADELPHIA: 

Wednesday \ November 26, 1834. 



A Federal Bank* — There are three principal rea- 
sons for which a Bank of the United States is de- 
sired by so large a portion of our citizens. 

The Jirsi is, that it affords the Government the 
best, if not the only means of collecting the public 
revenue. 

The 9eeond is, that it affords to merchants and 
others the best, if not the only means of negotiating 
domestic bills of exchange. 

The third is, that it furnishes a sound and uniform 
currency all over the United States. 

As to the first of these reasons, we have in our 
last paper, under the head of •'The Future Collec- 
tion of the Revenue," endeavoured to prove that 
the Government oould collect its revenue as well 
without as with a federal bank, and we shall now 
endeavour to show that merchants could collect do 
mestic bills of exchange as well without such a bank 
as with one. 

That a Bank of the United States has been found 
highly convenient in facilitating the negotiation of 
inland bills of exchange, cannot be disputed, but 
we are not on that account, to infer, that if there 
waa no hank, there would be no facilities for nego- 
tiating such bills. Toe reason why other facilities 
do not now present themselves, is, that competition 
is, to a certain extent, kept away by the existence 
of the present bank, which prevents the State banks 
and individual bankers, from making those mutual 
arrangements for facilitating exchange, which they 
would enter into were the field of competition not 
already so extensively occupied. But after all, it 
is but a very small part of all the domestic bills of 
exchange which are drawn, that can come within 
the operation of any one bank. By far the greater 
portion of them are negotiated through merchants 
who remit them to their correspondents, and it is 
because some merchants must have bills to transmit 
to a distance, that a bank is enabled to buy them of 
others, for it boys in order to sell again. If, there- 
fore, the; Bank was out of the way, that is, if she 
did not stand in between the seller and buyer, the 
parties would be obliged to negotiate directly with 
each other, or through the instrumentality of bro- 
kers, whose charge for the service would be no 
greater than the Bank now receives. We know it 
is generally thought, that the influence of the Bank 
is to equalize exchange, and that this equalization 
of exchange is a publit benefit. In this idea, how- 



ever, there is a great mistake. To equalize ex- 
change, if it mean any thing, means to prevent the 
buyer sometimes from buying a bill as cheap as he 
otherwise would, and the seller sometimes from 
selling one as dear as he otherwise would. Now, 
even admitting, for the sake of argument, this pro- 
cess to be an advantage both to buyer and seller, 
which, by the way, we do not hold, how is the 
public benefitted by it? It makes not a particle 
of odds to the community at large, whether A 
gets one per cent, more or less for his bill, or whe- 
ther B gives one per cent, more or less for it. It is 
a mere question between the parties, which, al- 
though it makes the pocket of one lighter than it 
would be under a free competition, does not affect 
the wealth of the community as a whole. 

But it would be well to inquire, is the power of 
dealing in exchange a power which can be as safely 
trusted, as regards the interests of the community, 
to a federal bank, as to individual enterprise? We 
think not, and for the following reason: when indi- 
viduals go into the market to buy and sell bills of 
exchange, they can only exert an influence on the 
price by their competition, and consequently, the 
market price, like that of all commodities, is settled 
by the proportion which the supply bears to the 
demand. The case, however, is widely different 
where a large monjed corporation enters into the 
market. In addition to her influence as a competi- 
tor, she possesses the power of raising or depress- 
ing the market price, by expanding or contracting 
the currency at her pleasure. Thus, when she 
wants to buy bills, she can make money scarce, and 
thus bring down their price, and when she wants 
to sell, she can make money plenty, and thus raise 
it. In the case of competition between individuals, 
the market price is always the natural price result- 
ing from the real operations of commerce. In the 
case of a bank, it may be an artificial price, brought 
about by the measures of the bank itself, in which 
case injustice is done to one of the parties to a bill, 
by compelling him to take less, or give more, than 
the. price which a natural competition would have 
established. It is not, however, -the dealers in bills 
of exchange, that are alone injured by the interfe- 
rence of a bank in their transactions. Every con- 
traction and expansion of a currency is a positive 
evil to the rest of the community, and no legislature 
can, in justice to the public, confer upon any cor- 
porate body the power of coining money, when it 
is for its interest to make money plenty, and of call- 
ing in its coinage when it is for its interest to make 
money scarce; but when it has been guilty of such 
injustice, it ought to abstain from placing in its way 
any motive for the exercise of this power, and hence 
the right of making a profit by foreign or domestic 
bills of exchange, ought never to be conferred upon 
a federal bank. At the season for drawing bills 
upon the cotton shipments at the South, what would 
prevent a bank, if it were so dUposed, from lower- 
ing the price of bills at New Orleans or Charles- 



143 



THE EXAMINER, 



ton, one per cent, by a turn of the screw, that she 
might buy cheap; and what would prevent her from 
raising the price of the same bills at New York or 
Philadelphia, one per cent, that she might sell them 
dear? There is nothing to prevent it, and although 
we have no reasons for supposing that such means 
have been resorted to by the present bank, yet such 
might be resorted to by others* 

From all then, that has been said, we conclude, 
that in the absence of a federal bank, the state banks 
and private bankers, would find their account in 
making such arrangements with one another, as 
would in time afford the same facilities for the trans- 
mission of funds all over the United States, as now 
prevail in Europe, through the means of private 
bankers, by which remittances can be made at the 
lowest rates of premium from one end of the conti- 
nent to the other. Nor would that period be very 
distant. The extensive improvements by rail-roads 
and steamboats, which are making every day, must 
have a tendency to facilitate intercourse, and to di- 
minish the expense of transporting coin, and thus 
reduce to the lowest rates, the premium charged 
upon domestic bills. 

We shall on a future occasion, offer some remarks 
upon the third reason above adverted to, for which 
a federal bank is thought to be necessary, namely, 
that it furnishes a sound and uniform currency all 
over the United States. 

After writing the foregoing article, we met with 
the following statements in some of our exchange 
papers, which we think, conclusively establish what 
we have asserted. 

Merchants Bank, Soiton. — Collections will be 
made by this Bank on the principal Commercial 
places in the United States, at the undermentioned 
rates of Exchange— 



South Cakolika. 
Charleston, 3-4 

Columbia, 1 
Gioboza. 

3-4 



>ll-2 



Savannah, 

Augusta, 

Columbus, 

Macon, 

Milledgville, 

Washington, 

Darien, 

Kentucky. 
Louisville, 1 1*4 

Frankfort, 1 « 
Lexington, ' $ 

TlHlTISSKE. 

Nashville, 2 



j 



14 

1-2 

3-4 



Massachusetts. 
Salem, ") per cent. 

Newburyportt 1-4 
Taunton j 
Worcester *} 
New Bedford C 1-2 
Nantucket j> 
Maixb. 
Portland ? 

Augusta 5 



1-4 
3-4 



Bath, } 

Bangor, J 

New Hampshthb. 
Portsmouth, ~) 
Exeter, £> 1-4 

Dover, j 

Rhode Island. 
Providence, 1-4 

All other places, 3-4 

COHHBCTICUT. 

Hartford, \ 
Hew Haven, J ** 4 
All other places, 1-2 

Nxw Yobk. 
City, 
Brooklyn 



14 



Albany, 

Troy, 

CatskiU, V 1.3 

Hudson, 

New burgh, 

All other places, 3-4 a 1 

New Jebset. 
Newark, 1-4 

All other places 1-4 

Pejtsstlvavia. 
Philadelphia, 1-4 
Pittsburgh, 1 
Maryland, 
Baltimore, 1-4 

Distijiict or Columbia 
Washington, 1-4 

Georgetown, 1-2 

Alexandria, 1-2 

VinoiariA* 
Richmond, 1 * n 
Norfolk, S 
Fredericksburgh "^ 
Petersburg, \ « 

Lynchburgh, f 
Kanawha, J 



Ohio. 
Cincinnati, 1 1*4 

Chillicothe, ") 
Scioto, ( 2 

Dayton, j 

Mississippi. 
Natchez, 1 

Port Gibson, 1 
Alabama. 
Mobile, 

Tuscalooss, ~) 
Huntsville, S> 1 
Montgomery, j 

Missovbi. 
St. Louis, 2 

Louisiana. 
New Orleans, 3-4 
St. FrancisviUe, 1 1*4 
* EicHAir#E.— Believing that the merchants, tra- 
ders, and others of this city, may be benefitted by a 
statement of the rates of exchange, similar to the plan 
adopted by the Boston Banks, we have obtained a 
list of rates as at present charged by the Phoenix 
Bank of this city. 

The arrangements for the Phoenix Bank for eel* 
lecting bills and notes, extend to every State and 
territory of the union, and we have found it necessary 
therefore to condense our table by inserting the* 
maximum and minimum rates on each 6tate. The 
variations arise from the greater or less difficulty 
of collecting on some of the towns and places of the 
interior and off the direct mail routes. 
Maine, J a £ Illinois, 

New Hampshire, i a j Indiana, 
Massachusetts, a i Missouri, 
Rhode Island, - a - Kentucky, 

Vermont, i a i Tennessee, 

Connecticut, — a i N. Carolina, 
New York (interior) J a j S. Carolina, 
New Jersey, — a } Georgia, 

Penna. (interior) — a J Alabama, 
Delaware, — a J Louisiana, 

Maryland, a J Mississippi, 

Ohio, i alj Florida, 

No charge is made to the customers of the Bank, 
for collections on Boston, Providence, New Haven, 
Albany, and neighbouring places, Philadelphia, Bal- 
timore.— N. Y. Times. 

We have received from the author, a pamphlet of 
45 pages, recently printed at the office of the Co- 
lumbia Times, entitled "Consolidation, part second, 
or, an account of Parties in the United States. Be- 
ing strictures on an article in the North American 
Review, for July, 1834. By Thomas Cooper, M. D.* 
Two of the Essays, of which this pamphlet is com- 
posed, have appeared in the Examiner, at pages 86 
and 100, under the head of "The Federal Govern* 
menV to which the reader is referred as a specimen 
of the ability and learning which characterise the 
whole production. 

* # * The communication of Cat© is received, and 
will appear in our next 

South Carolina ZcgUlature.-~T\\e strength of 
parties in the Senate is 32 Nullifiers, to 13 Union 
menj and in the House 93 Nullifiers, to 31 Union 
men, being Ihree-fewths Nullifiers in each House* 
The following is the full return: 



1**2* 
H i2 
1J a 2J 
1 a 1) 
alj 
a 1 

a U 
a 14 

a 2* 



1 

t 
1 
1 
1 
1* 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



143 



ELECTION RETURNS. 





Senile 


Hew 




CD 


a 


00 


C 


PARISHES AND DISTRICTS. 


8 


5. 
5' 


S 


3 

i' 




0»q 


3 


oq 




ST 




3" 






1 


— 


1 


__ 


8t. Thomas and St. Dennis, 




St. Philips am* St. Michael, 




1 




16 




Christ Churchy .... 










1 


St Andrews* 












1 




Richbnd District, 








1 




4 




St. Bartholomews, 








1 




3 




St. James, Santee, 












1 




Matron, 












2 




St. James, Goose Creel 


E» • 












1 


St. John's, Berkley, 








1 




2 




Darlington, 






v 








2 


Prince George, Winyai 


*, 








1 




3 


81. Luke's, 












2 




St. Helena* 








1 




2 




Williamsburg, 










1 


1 


1 


Prince William's Parish 








1 




2 




All Saints Parish, 








1 




1 




Abbeville District, 












5 




Pendleton, , 








1 




7 




Lexington, 








1 




2 




Chester, 












4 




Greenville, 














3 


Edgefield, 








1 




& 




Claremonr, 








1 




3 




St. Stephens, 












1 




Orange Parish, • 












2 


3 


Kershaw, 














Lancaster, 














2 


Chesterfield, 










1 




2 


York, 














4 


Union, 












4 




Spartanburgh, 










1 




5 


Fairfield, 












4 




Barnwell; • 








1 




3 


2 


Clarendon, 










1 




Lauren, * , ' . 








1 




4 




Horry, . _ . 










1 




1 


Marlborough, ~* . 








1 




1 




St. Peters,* 












2 




St, Matthews, • . 








1 




1 




St. John's, Colleton, 








1 




1 


1 


St. George, Dorchester 


• 








1 




St. Pauls,* 












1 




Newberry, 






1 




4 
93 






18 


7 


31 


**Fhs reaalr in Uwsa Parisbos to known, tbo' 










tae official returns have not been received. 










NOW IN OFFICE. 










8t. Paula, 


1 








St. Peters 








I 








Fairfield, . 








i 








Union, 








l 




i 




York, . . 








l 








Lancaster, . 










1 






Kershaw, 










1 






Orange Parish, . 








l 








St. Stephens, 








i 








Greenrille, 










1 






Chester, 








l 








Abbeville, • 








l 








St. Lukes, 








i 








Darlington, 










1 






St. James, Goose Creel 


't 








1 






Marion, 








l 








St James, Santee, 








l 








8fc Andrews, 








l 








Christ Church, • 










1 






BU Philip and St. Michael, 




l 








Total, 








32 


13 


93 


31 



The Constitution of the United «Wei.-We hare 
often mentioned, that the people of Pennsylvania 
were extremely ignorant of the principles and cha- 
racter of the Federal Constitution, and in order that 
this charge may not rest entirely upon our assertion 
we copy the following article from a paper publish* 
ed in the north west section of the State. 
From the Brie Observer. 

Constitution of the United States.— There is pro* 
bably no document, so much referred to as the con- 
stitution of this government, that is so little under- 
stood, by the great mass of the people. We do not 
believe that one man in fifty has it in his possession; 
nor that one in twenty has ever given it an attentive 
perusal. And what is more surprising, is that^with 
the facility enjoyed by the editorial fraternity, it has 
not been more generally diffused among our citizens. 
With many of our brethren, it is customary, on eve- 
ry return of our national anniversary, to lay before 
their readers, that invaluable document, the Decla- 
ration of Independence; but before now, we never 
saw the Constitution on which our Government is 
founded, (which is at least as necessary to be exten- 
sively understood) in the columns of a newspaper. — 
For our own part, it never occurred to us, until now 
that it coukl bc^promulgated in this way — although 
for some time, we have had it in contemplation te 
present it to our readers in a pamphlet form. The 
Blairsville Kecord has shown us that it can be pub- 
lished in a newspaper; and we follow the example: 
recommending to all knights of the stick and rule* 
who cater for the public, to do the same. If all 
editors of periodicals woukl give it an insertion, ev- 
ery man in the United States would then be able te 
put his own construction Upon it; and "to support it 
as he understands it." 

We advise each of our subscribers, who has it not 
in a more convenient form, to preserve this paper, 
and our next, so that they may have this important 
document handy for reference in case of future 
doubts. 

Manufactures at the South — The following article 
is copied from one of our daily papers: 

w Our southern fellow citizens are turning their 
attention to the subject of manufactures among 
themselves, and have within a few years engaged 
in the manufacture of cotton to some extent in va- 
rious places. The Lynchburg Virginian, mentions 
that a new factory has recently been established in 
that enterprising town, with every prospect of suc- 
cess. The building is of brick, forty feet by eighty* 
four in dimensions, and calculated for 2500 spindles, 
and will give employment to about seventy per- 
sons. White labourers only are to be employed. '* 

The city of Troy was betrayed into the hands of 
the Grecians, by permitting a large wooden horse 
filled with men, to enter into its gates. Every man- 
ufacturing establishment belonging to the class that 
requires protective duties, for its support, which is 
introduced into the South is' a wooden horse, that 
will bring forth enemies enough in conjunction with. 
those who are waiting outside of the Walls, to pros* 
trate her liberties. Look at New England; she ad- 
vocated free trade as firmly as the South, until some 
of her influential and wealthy men tasted of the 
sweets of monopo!y,and where is she now? "Seventy 
persons'* seen employed in a factory, spinning cot- 
ton, although it may be a losing concern, do more 
to humbug all the people in the neighbourhood and 



144 



THE EXAMINER, <fcc. 



present a more imposing appearance of "American I exeept our humble selves, at that time editing the 
Industry," than ten times the number of persons Free Trade Advocate, and any one who should have 
scattered over the country in agricultural pursuits, | pronounced Mr. Jackson to be of opposite views 



or over the ocean, in commercial pursuits. Thence 
it is, that so many persons are incautiously drawn 
into the^ advocacy of manufactures in preference to 
agriculture and commerce. They seem to think* 
that if people are only employed in spinning and 
weaving cotton or wool in a large factory, the coun- 
try must needs be a gainer to the whole extent of 
the labour employed upon the material. In this 
however, they are greatly mistaken. It is possible 
that the value of the whole labour expended, may 
be entirely lost, in which case, such establishments 
add no more to the wealth of the country, than if 
the operatives were employed in turning grind- 
stones, when nothing was to be ground. 

An kontit TtxuL— We recommend to a large class 
of Southern politicians, the following toast given at 
a public dinner, at Covington, Mississippi, on the 
10th of October. It is an honest confession of poli- 
tical doctrines, held by many, who are afraid to avow 
them, — 

By Elijah Wslker. May " Nullification, Bank and 
8tatx Rights die, and one grave entomb them all, 
and may God eave General Jackson and the Union." 

Hunting by Proxy. — The great mass of the peo- 
ple instead of exercising the faculty of reason with 
which they are endowed, and thereby forming opin- 
ions which can acquire a fixidity in their minds, are 
too prone to leave to others the business of thinking 
for them. This is particularly true in politics, and 
hence there are millions of people who will not take 
the trouble of examining into even a matter of so 
great importance as that of the character of the go- 
vernment under which they live. They are satisfied 
with what their party leaders say on the subject, and 
are always willing to pin their faith upon the sleeves 
of those who will save them from the labour of ac- 
quiring principles of their own. A story is told of 
an old Dutchman in the Pennsylvania legislature, who 
always made short speeches, pretty much in the fol- 
lowing strain: "Mr. Sbeaker, I dinks tike Mr. Sny- 
der dinks." At this day more than half the people 
of Pennsylvania think as Mr. Jackson thinks, and 
what is conclusive proof of this is, that let him think 
what be pleases to-day, and what he pleases to-mor- 
row of a directly opposite tendency, all hands cry 
out "I think so too." In support of this assertion let 
us look a littleat the events of the past few years. 

When Mr. Jackson came into office in 1829, Penn- 
sylvania was unanimous for appropriations for Inter- 
nal Improvements by the Federal Government, and 
calculated largely upon her share of the spoils. — 
Jackson had been supported upon the ground of his 
being a friend to internal improvements, and was 
lauded to the skies for his advocacy of that cause: — 
Not an editor in the State dared to question the con- 
stitutionality or expediency of such appropriations, 



would not have been believed. When the Mays- 
ville veto appeared in 1830, the whole party was 
put to the staggers. Letters were however written 
from Washington by members of Congress and pub- 
lic officers, to all the leading Jackson editors 
throughout the United States, to sustain the mea- 
sure as a party measure, and instantly the whole 
tune was changed. The people all of a sudden 
changed their opinions, and new light instantly 
struck in upon the intellects of the editorial corps* 
which enabled them to see for the first time that that 
was true, which the State Rights men of the South 
had always affirmed to be true. All the politicians 
of Pennsylvania thought as Mr. Jackson thought, 
and they will continue to do the same let him think 
what he may. 

Precisely the same thing happened all over the 
United States in reference to Mr. Jackson's change 
of opinion about Nullification. When General 
flayne in 1830, delivered his speech upon Foote's 
resolution, in the Senate, advocating the doctrine 
of Nullification, Mr. Jackson wrote him a note (we ' 
know the fact) expressing his decided approval of 
its doctrines. The whole Jackson press through* 
out the country, extolled Hayne's speech as an 
orthodox exposition of the true democratic doc- 
trines, and all the Jackson party huzzaed for the 
right of State interposition. No sooner however, 
had Mr. Jackson quarrelled with some of the lead- 
ing men who held those same doctrines, and in eon- 
sequence thereof changed his opinions, and fulmi- 
nated his Proclamation against South Carolina, in 
which he denied the sovereignty of the States, than 
all the editors and rank and file of the Jackson par- 
ty, instantly changed their opinions, and huzzaed 
for the very consolidation doctrines, advocated by 
Mr. Webster, in opposition to Gen. Hayne, and 
which two years before, they had denounced as hos- 
tile to the liberties of the country. 

It will thus be seen that the office of Thinker Ge- 
neral for a large community is a pretty important 
one, for good or eril. If the Incumbent be honest 
and intelligent, free from all selfish ambition, high- 
minded and virtuous, he hssitrin his power to con 
duct a nation to the highest pitch of popularity and 
happiness. But if he be on the other hand, ignorant 
and the slave of revengeful passions, of unbridled 
ambition, and puffed up with a vain conceit of his 
great popularity, a mere instrument in the hands of 
sycophants and political gamblers, he cannot fail to 
bring disgrace on the country, in the estimation of 
all who are capable of discerning the difference be- 
tween credit and dishonour. 

The terms of subscription to the Examiner, after 
the first of January, will be two dollars per i 
payable in advance. 



THE EXAMINER, 



AND 



JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



DEVOTED TO THE ADVANCEMENT OF THE CAUSE OP STATE RIGHTS AND FREE TRADE. 

The Powers not Delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to tbe State*, are reserved to the 

States respectively, or to the People Amendment* to the Constitution, Art. X 

Fnedom of Industry, as sacred as freedom of speech or of tbe press. . Jefferson. 



Vol. II.] 



Wednesday, December 10, 1884. 



[No. 10. 



PROTEST 

Qf ike President against the Proceedings of the Senate 

in relation to the removal of the Public depositee. 

To tmm Ssjlitz o» thz Uhitid States: 

It appears by the published journal of the Senate, 
that on tbe 20th of December last, a resolution was 
offered by a member of the Senate, which, after a 
protracted debate, was, on the twenty-eighth day 
of March last, modified by the mover, and passed 
by the votes of twenty-six Senators out of forty »six, # 
who were present and voted, in the following words, 
viz: 

" Resolved, That the President, in the late Exe- 
cutive proceedings, in relation to the public revenue; 
has assumed upon himself authority and power not 
conferred by the constitution and laws, but in dero- 
gation of both." 

Having had the honour, through the voluntary 
suffrages of the American people, to fill the office 
of President of the United States during the period 
which may be presumed to have been referred to 
in this resolution, it is sufficiently evident that the 
censure it inflicts was intended for myself. Without 
notice, unheard and untried, I thus find myself 
charged on the records of the Senate, and in a form 
hitherto * unknown in our history, with the high 
crime of violating the laws and constitution of my 
country. 

It can seldom be necessary for any department of 
the Government, when assailed in conversation or 
debate, or by the strictures of the press, or of popu- 
lar assemblies, to step out of its ordinary path for 
the purpose of vindicating 1 its conduct, or of point- 
ing out any irregularity or injustice m the manner 
of the attack. But when the chief Executive Ma- 
gistrate is, by one of the most important branches 
of the Government, in its official capacity, in a pub- 
lic manner, and by its recorded sentence, but with- 
out precedent, competent Authority, or just cause, 
declared guilty of a breach of the laws and constitu- 
tion, it is due to his station, to public opinion, and 
to a proper self-respect, that the officer thus de- 

• Y&AS.-p-Messrs. Bibb, Blaek, Calhoun, Clsy, Clay- 
too, Ewing , Prelinghuysea, Kent, Knight, Leigh, Man- 
gum, Naodaio, Poladexter, Porter, Prentiss, Preston, 
Bobbins, Silsbee, Smith, Southard, Sprafcue, Swift, 
Tomlinson; Tyler, Waggamsn, Webster— 26. 

NATS. — Messrs. Benton, Brown, Forsyth, Grundy, 
Heodrieks,'UUI, Kane, King of Ala., King of Ga., Linn, 
M'Keao, Moore, Morris, Robinson, Shepley, Tall- 
madge, Tipton, White, Wilkins, Wright— 90. 



nounced, should promptly expose the wrong which 
has been done. 

In the present case, moreover, there is even a 
stronger necessity for such a vindication. By an 
express provision of the constitution, before the Pre- 
sident of the United States can enter on the execu- 
tion of his office, he is required to take an oath or 
affirmation in the following words: 

" I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faith- 
fully execute the office of President of the United 
States; and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, 
protect, and defend, the constitution of the United 
States." 

The duty of defending, so far as in him lies, the 
integrity of the constitution, would indeed have re- 
sulted from the very nature of his office; but by thus 
expressing it in the official oath or affirmation, which 
in this respect, differs from that of every other func- 
tionary, the founders of our republic have attested 
their sense of its importance, and have given to it 
a peculiar solemnity and force. Bound to the per- 
formance of this duty by the oath I have taken, by 
the strongest obligations of gratitude to the Ameri- 
can people, and by the ties which unite my every 
earthly interest with the welfare and glory of my 
country, and perfectly convinced that the discussion 
and passage of the above mentioned resolution, were 
not only unauthorized by the constitution, but in 
many respects repugnant to its provisions, and sub- 
versive of the rights secured by it to other co-ordi- 
nate departments, I deem it an imperative duty to 
maintain the supremacy of that sacred instrument, 
and the immunities of the department intrusted to 
my care, by all means consistent with my own law- 
ful powers, with the rights of others, and with the 
genius of our civil institutions. To this end, I have 
caused this, my solemn protest against the aforesaid 
proceedings, to be placed on the files of the Exe- 
cutive Department, and to be transmitted to the 
Senate. 

It is alike due to the subject, the Senate, and the 
people, that the views which I hsve taken of the 
proceedings referred to, and which compel me to 
regard them in the light that has been mentioned, 
should be exhibited at length, and with the freedom 
and firmness which are required by an occasion so 
unprecedented and peculiar. 

Under the constitution of the United States, the 
powers and functions of the various departments of 
the Federal Government, and their responsibilities 
for violation or neglect of duty, are clearly defined 
or result by necessary inference. The Legislative 
power, subject to the qualified negative of the Pre- 



146 



THE EXAMINER, 



sident,is Tested in the Congress of the United States, | authorized and necessarily required to consider and 



composed of the Senate and House of Representa- 
tives. The Executive power is vested exclusively I 
in the President, except that in the conclusion of 
treaties, and in certain appointments to office, he is 
to act with the advice ami consent of the Senate. 
The Judicial power is vested exclusively in the Su- 
preme and other Courts of the United States, except 
in cases of impeachment, for which purpose the 
accusatory power is vested in the House of Repre- 
sentatives; and that of hearing and determining in 
the Senate. But although for the special purposes 
which have been mentioned, there is an occasional 
intermixture of the powers of the different depart- 
ments, yet, with these exceptions, each of the three 
great departments is independent of the others in 
its sphere of action; and when it deviates from that 
sphere, is not responsible to the others, further than 
it is expressly made so jn» the constitution. In 
every other respect, each of them is the co-equal 
of the other two, and all are the servants of the 
American people, without power or right to control 
or censure each other in the service of their com- 
mon superior, save only in the manner, and to the 
degree, which that superior has prescribed. 

The responsibilities of the President are numer- 
ous and weighty. He is liable to impeachment for 
high crimes and misdemeanors, and, on due con- 
viction, to removal from office, and perpetual dis- 
qualification; and notwithstanding such conviction, 
he may also be indicted and punished according to 
law. He is also liable to the private action of any 
party who may have been injured by his legal man-, 
dates or instructions, in the same manner, and to the 
same extent, as the humblest functionary. In addi- 
tion to the responsibilities which may thus be en- 
forced by impeachment, criminal prosecution, or 
suit at law, he is also accountable at the bar of public 
opinion, for every act of his administration. Subject 
only to the restraints of truth and justice, the free 
people of the United States have the undoubted 
right, as individuals or collectively, orally or in writ- 
ing, 'at such times, and in such language and form as 
they may think proper, to discuss his official con- 
duct, and to express and promulgate their opinion 
concerning it Indirectly, also, his conduct may 
come under review, in either branch of the Legisla- 
ture, or in the Striate when acting in its Executive 
capacity, and so far as the executive or legislative 
proceedings of these bodies may require it, it may 
be examined by them. These are believed to be 
the proper and only modes in which the President 
of the United States is to be held accountable for 
his official conduct. 

Tested by these principles, the resolution of the 
Senate is wholly unauthorized by the constitution, 
and in derogation of its entire spirit. It assumes 
that a single branch of the Legislative Department 
may, for the purpose of public censure, and without 
any view to legislation or impeachment, take up, 
consider, and decide upon, the official acts of the 
Executive. But in no part of the constitution is the 
President subjected to any such responsibility, and 
in no part of that instrument is any such power con- 
ferred on either branch of the Legislature. 

The justice of these conclusions will be illustrated 
and confirmed by a brief analysis of the powers of 
the Senate, and a comparison of their recent pro- 
ceedings with those powers. 

The nigh functions assigned by the constitution 
to the Senate, are in their nature either legislative, 
executive, or judicial. It is only in the exercise of 
its judicial powers, when sitting as a Court for* the 
trial of impeachments, that the Senate is expressly 



decide upon the conduct of the President, or anr 
other public officer. Indirectly, however, as has al- 
ready been suggested, it may frequently be called 
on to perform that office. Cases may occur in the 
course of its legislative or executive proceedings, 
in which it may be indispensable to the proper ex- 
ercise of its powers, that it should inquire into and 
decide upon, the conduct of the President or other 
public officers; and in every case, its constitutional 
right to do so is cheerfully conceded. But to au- 
thorize the Senate to enter on such a task in its le- 
gislative or executive capacity, the inquiry must ac- 
tually grow out of, an J tend to, some legislative or 
executive action; and the decision, when expressed, 
must take the form of some appropriate legislative 
or executive act. 

The resolution in question was introduced, dis- 
cussed, and passed, not as a ioint, but as a separate 
resolution. It asserts no Irgtslative power: propo- 
ses no legislative action; and neither posaeses the 
form nor any of the attribute* of a legislative mea- 
sure. It does not appear to have been entertained 
or passed with any view or expectation of its issninsr 
in a law or joint ret»olution, or in any other legisla- 
tive action. 

Whilst wanting both the form and substance of a 
legislative measure, it is equally manifest, that the 
resolution was not justified by any of the executive 
powers conferred on the Senate. These powers re- 
late exclusively to the consideration of treaties and 
nominutions to office; and they are exercised in se- 
cret session, and with closed doors. This resolution 
does not apply to any treaty or nomination, and was 
passed in a public session, 

Nor does this proceeding in any way belong to 
that class of incidental resolutions which relate to 
the officers of the Senate, to their chamber, and 
other appurtenances, or to subjects of order, and 
other matters of the like nature — in all which either 
House may lawfully proceed without any co-opera- 
tion with the other, or with the President. 

On the contrary, the whole phraseology and sense 
of the resolution seem to be judicial. Its essence, 
true character, and only practical effect, are to be 
found in the conduct which it charges upon the 
President, snd in the judgment which it pronounces 
on that conduct. The resolution^therefore, though 
discussed and adopted by the Senate in its legisla- 
tive capacity, is, in its office, and in all its character- 
istics, essentially judicial. 

That the Senate possesses a high judicial power, 
and that instances may occur in which the Presi- 
dent of the United States will be amenable to it, is 
undeniable. But under the provisions of the consti- 
tution, it would seem to be equally plain, that nei- 
ther the President nor any other officer, can be 
rightfully subjected to the operation of the judicial 
power of the Senate, except in the cases and under 
the forms prescribed by the constitution. 

The constitution declares, that «' the President, 
Vice President, and all civil officers of the United 
States, shall be removed from office on impeach- 
ment for, and conviction o£ treason, bribery, or 
other high crimes and misdemeanors' 9 — that the 
House of Representatives "shall have the sole pow- 
er of impeachments''-- that the Senate "shall save 
the sole power to try sll impeachments" — that 
" when sitting for that purpose, they shall be o» 
oath or affirmation*'— that M when the President of 
the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall 
preside" — that " no person shall be convicted with- 
out the concurrence of two-thuds of the members 
present"— snd that "judgment shall not extend fur- 



AND JOURNAL OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 



147 



ther than to removal from office, and disqualification 
to hold and enjoy any office of honour, trust or pro- 
lit, under the United States." 

The resolution above quoted, charges, in sub- 
stance, that in certain proceedings relating to the 
public revenue, the President has usurped authority 
and power not conferred upon him by the constitu- 
tion and laws, and that in doing so, he violated both. 
Any such act constitutes a high crime—- one of the 
highest, indeed, which the President can commit — 
a crime which justly exposes him to impeachment 
by the House of Representatives, and upon due con- 
viction, to removal from office, and to the complete 
and immutable disfranchisement prescribed by the 
constitution. 

The resolution then, was in substance an impeach- 
ment of the President; and in its passage, amounts 
to a declaration by a majority of the Senate, that he 
is guilty of an impeachable offence. As such, it is 
spread upon the journals of the Senate— published 
to the nation and to the world — made part of our 
enduring archives; and incorporated in the history of 
the age. The punishment of removal from office, 
and future disqualification, does not, it is true, follow 
this decision; nor would it have followed the like 
decision, if the regular forms of proceeding had 
been pursued, because the requisite number did not 
concur in the result. But the moral influence of a 
solemn declaration by a majority of the Senate, that 
the accused is guilty of the offence charged upon 
him, has been as effectually secured, as if the like 
declarations had been made upon an impeachment 
expressed in the same terms. Indeed, a greater 
practical effect has been gained, because the votes 
given for the resolution, though not sufficient to au- 
thorize a judgement of guilty on an impeachment, 
were numerous enough to carry that resolution. 

That the resolution does not expressly allege that 
the assumption of power and authority which it con- 
demns, was intentional and corrupt, is no answer to 
the preceding view of its character and effect. The 
act thus condemned, necessarily implies volition 
and design in the individual to whom it is imputed, 
and being unlawful in its character, the legal con- 
clusion is, that it was prompted by improper mo- 
tives, and committed with an unlawful intent. The 
charge is not of a mistake in the exercise of sup- 
posed powers, but of the assumption of powers not 
conferred by the constitution and law, but in dero- 
gation of both, and nothing is suggested to excuse 
or palliate the turpitude of the act. In the absence 
of any such excuse, or palliation, there is only room 
for one inference, and that is, that the intent was 
unlawful and corrupt. Besides, the resolution not 
only contains no mitigating suggestion, but, on the 
contrary, it holds up the act complained of, as justly 
obnoxious to censure and reprobation, and thus as 
distinctly stamps it with impurity of motive, as if 
the strongest epithets had been used. 

The President of the United States, therefore, 
has been, by a majority of his constitutional triers, 
accused and found guilty of an impeachable offence; 
but in no part of this proceeding have the directions 
of the constitution been observed. 

The impeachment, instead of being preferred and 
prosecuted by the House of Representatives, origi- 
nated in the Senate, and was prosecuted without 
the aid or concurrence of the other House. The 
oath or affirmation prescribed by the constitution, 
was not taken by the Senators; the Chief Justice did 
not preside; no notice of the charge was given to the 
accused, and no opportunity afforded him to respond 
to the accusation, to meet the accusers face to face, 
to cross-examine the witnesses, to procure counter- 
acting testimony, or to be heard in his defence. The 



safeguards and formalities which the constitution 
has connected with the power of impeachment, 
were doubtless supposed by the framers of that in- 
strument, to be essential to the protection of the 
public servant, to the attainment of justice, and to ' 
the order, impartiality, and dignity of the proce- 
dure. These safeguards and formalities were not 
only disregarded, in the commencement and con- 
duct of these proceedings, but in their result I find 
myself convicted by less than two-thirds of the mem- 
bers present, of an impeachable offence. 

In vain may it be alleged in defence of this pro- 
ceeding, that the form of the resolution is not that 
of an impeachment, or of a judgment thereupon, 
that the punishment prescribed in the constitution 
does not follow its adoption, or that in this case, no 
impeachment is to be expected from the House of 
Representatives. It is because it did not assume the 
form of an impeachment, that it is the more palpa- 
bly repugnant to the Constitution, for it is through 
that form only that the Presidfent is judicially respon- 
sible to the Senate; and though neither removal from 
office nor future disqualification ensues, yet it is not 
to be presumed that the framers of the constitution 
considered either or both of these results, as consti- 
tuting the whole of the punishment they prescribed. 
The judgment of guilty by the highest tribunal in 
the Union; the stigma it would inflict on the offen- 
der, his family and fame; and the perpetual record 
on the journal, handing down to future generations 
the story of his disgrace, were doubtless regarded 
by them as the bitterest portions, if not the very es- 
sence of that punishment. So far, therefore, as 
some of its most material parts are concerned, the 
passage, recording,' and promulgation of the resolu- 
tion, are an attempt to bring them on the President, 
in a manner unauthorized by the constitution. To 
shield him and other officers who are liable to im- 
peachment, from consequences so momentous, ex- 
cept when really merited by official delinquencies, 
the constitution has most carefully guarded the 
whole process of impeachment. A majority of the 
House of Representatives must think the officer 
guilty, before he can be charged. Two-thirds of 
the Senate must pronounce him guilty or he is deem- 
ed to be innocent. Forty-six Senators appear by 
the journal to have been present when the vote on 
the resolution was taken. If, after all the solemni- 
ties of an impeachment, thirty of those Senators had 
Voted that the President was guilty, yet would he 
have been acquitted; but by the mode of proceeding 
adopted in the present case, a lastingrecord of con- 
viction has been entered up by the votes of twenty- 
six Senators, without an impeachment or trial, whilst 
the constitution expressly declares that to the entry 
of such judgment, an accusation by the House of 
Representatives, a trial by the Senate, and a concur- 
rence of two thirds in the vote of guilty, shall be 
indispensable prerequisites. 

Whether or not an impeachment was to be ex- 
pected from the House of Representatives, was a 
point on which the Senate had no constitutional 
right to speculate, and in respect to which, even 
had it possessed the spirit of prophecy, its anticipa- 
tions would have furnished no just grounds for the 
procedure. Admitting that there was reason to be- 
lieve that a violation of the constitution and Laws 
had been actually committed by the President, still 
it was the duty of the Senate, as his sole constitution- 
al judges, to wait for an impeachment until the 
other House should think proper to prefer it The 
members of the Senate could have no right to infer 
that no impeachment waa intended. On the con- 
trary, every legal and rational presumption on their 
' part ought to have been, that if there was goodrea- 



148 



THE EXAMINER, 



■on to believe him guilty of an impeachable offence, 
the House of Representatives would perform its con- 
stitutional duty, by arraigning the offender before 
the justice of his country. The contrary presump- 
tion would involve an implication derogatory to the 
integrity and honour of the Representatives of the 
People. But suppose the subpicion thus implied 
were actually entertained, and for good cause, how 
can it justify the assumption by the Senate of pow- 
ers not conferred by Die constitution? 

It is only necessary to look at the condition in 
which the Senate and the President have been plac- 
ed by this proceeding, to perceive its utter incom- 
patibility with the provisions and the spirit of the 
constitution, and with the plainest dictates of hu- 
manity and justice* 

If the House of Representatives shall be of opi- 
nion that there is just grounds for the censure pro- 
nounced upon the President, then will it be the so- 
lemn duty of that House to prefer the proper accu- 
sation, and to cause him to be brought to trial by 
the constitutional tribunal. But in what condition 
would he find that tribunal? A majority of its mem- 
bers have already considered the case, and have not 
only formed but expressed a deliberate judgment 
upon its merits. It is the policy of our benign sys- 
tem of jurisprudence, to secure, in all criminal pro- 
ceedings, and even in the most trivial litigations, a 
lair, unprejudiced and impartial trial. And surely it 
cannot be less important that such a trial should be 
secured to the highest officer of the Government. 

The constitution makes the House of Representa- 
tives the exclusive judges, in the first instance, of 
the question, whether the President has committed 
an impeachable offence. A majority of the Senate, 
whose interference with this preliminary question, 
has, for the best of all reasons, been studiously ex- 
cluded, anticipate the action of the House of Repre- 
sentatives, assume not only the function which be 
longs exclusively to that body, but convert them- 
selves into accusers, witnesses, counsel and judges, 
and prejudge the whole case. Thus presenting the 
appalling spectacle, in a free state, ofjudjres going 
through a laboured preparation for an impartial 
hearing and decision; by a previous ex parte inves- 
tigation and sentenceagainst the supposed offender. 
There is no more settled axiom in that govern- 
ment whence we derived the model of this part of 
our constitution than **that the Lords cannot im- 
peach anv to themselves, nor join in the accusation, 
because they are judges." Independently of the ge- 
neral reasons on which this rule is founded, its pro- 
priety and importance are greatly increased by the 
nature of the impeaching power. The power of ar- 
raigning the high officers of government before a 
tribunal whose sentence may expel them from their 
•eats and brand them as infamous, is eminently a 
popular remedy— a remedy designed to be employ- 
ed for the protection of private right and public li- 
berty, against the abuses of injustice and the en- 
croachments of arbitrary power. But the framers of 
the constitution were also undoubtedly aware that 
this formidable instrument bad been, and might be 
abused; and that from its very nature, an impeach- 
ment for high crimes and misdemeanors, whatever 
might be its result, would in most cases be accom- 
panied by so much of dishonour and reproach, solici- 
tude and suffering, as to make the power of prefer- 
ring it, one of the highest solemnity and importance. 
It was due to both these considerations, that the im- 
peaching power should be lodged in the hands of 
those who, from the mode of their election and the 
tenure of their offices would most accurately express 
the popular will, and at the same time be most direct 



ry of this wise and benignant intention is, in the pre* 
sent case, effectually defeated by the proceedings 
of the Senate. The members of that body repre- 
sent, not the people, but the States; and though 
they are undoubtedly responsible to the States, yet 
from their extended term of service, the effect of 
that responsibility, during the whole period of that 
term, must very much depend upon their own im- 
pressions of its obligatory force. When a body thus 
constituted, expresses, beforehand, its opinions in a 
particular case, and thus indirectly invites a prose- 
cution, it not only assumes a power intended for 
wise reasons to be confined to others, but it shields 
the latter from that exclusive and personal responsi- 
bility under which it was intended to be exercised, 
and reverses the whole scheme of this part of the 
constitution. 

Such would be some of the objections to this proce- 
dure, even if it were admitted that there is just 
ground for imputing to the President the offences 
charged in the resolutions. But if, on the other hand, 
the House of Representatives shall be of opinion that 
there is no reason for charging them upon him, and 
shall therefore deem it improper to prefer an im- 
peachment, then will the violation of privilege, at 
it respects that House, of justice as it regards the 
President, and of the constitution as it relates to 
both, be only the more conspicuous and impres- 
sive. 

The constitutional, mode of procedure on an im- 
peachment has not only been wholly disregarded, 
but some of the first principles of natural right and 
enlightened jurisprudence, have been violated in 
the very form of the resolutions. It carefully abstains 
from averring in which of "the late proceedings in 
relation to the public revenue, the President has as- 
sumed upon himself authority and power not con- 
ferred by the constitution and laws/' It carefully 
abstains from specifying what law* or what parts of 
the constitution have been violated. Why was not 
the certainty of the offence— "the nature and 
cause of the accusation" — set out in the manner re- 
quired in the constitution, before even the hum- 
blest individual, for the smallest crime, can be ex- 
posed to condemnation? Such a specification wss 
due to the accused, that he might direct his defence 
to the real points of attack; to the People, that they 
might clearly understand in what particulars their 
institutions had been violated, and to the truth and 
certainty of our public annals. As the record now „ 
stands, whilst the resolution plainly charges upon 
the President at least one set of usurpation in "the 
late Executive proceedings in relation to the public 
revenue," and is so framed that those Senators who 
believed that one such act, and only one, had been 
committed, could assent to it; its language is yet 
broad enough to include several such acts, and so 
it may have been regarded by some of those who 
voted for it. But though the accusation is thus 
comprehensive in the censures it implies, there is 
no such certainty of time, place, or circumstance, as 
to exhibit the particular conclusion of fact or law 
which induced any one Senator to vote for it And 
it may well have happened, that whilst one Senator 
believed that one particular act embraced in the re- 
solution, was an arbitrary and unconstitutional as- 
sumption of power, others of the majority may have 
deemed that very act both constitutional and expe- 
dient, or if not expedient, yet still within the pale 
of the constitution. And thus a majority of the 
Senators may have been enabled to concur, in a 
vague and undefined accusation, that the President 
in the course of •late Executive proceedings in rela- 
tion to the public revenue," had violated the con- 



1 v and speedily amenable to the people. The theo- ■ stKution and laws, whilst if a separate vote had been 



AND JOURNAL OP POLITICAL ECONOMY, 



140 



taken in respect to each particular act, included 
within the general terms, the accusers of the Presi- 
dent might, on any such vote, have been found in 
the minority. • 

Still further to exemplify this feature of the pro- 
ceeding, it is important to be remarked, that the 
resolution, as originally offered to the Senate, speci- 
fied, with adequate precision, certain acts of the 
President, which it denounced as a violation of the 
constitution and laws; and that it was not until the 
very close of the debate, and when r perhaps, it was 
apprehended that a majority might not sustain the 
specific accusation contained in it, that the resolu- 
tion was so modified as to assume its present form. 
A more striking illustration of the soundness and ne- 
cessity of the rules which forbid vague and indefinite 
generalities, and require a reasonable certainty in all 
Judicial allegations, and a more glaring instance of 
the violation of those rules, has seldom been exhi- 
bited. 

In this view of the resolution it must certainly be 
regarded, not as a vindication of any particular pre- 
vision of the law or the constitution, but simply as 
an official rebuke or condemnatory sentence, too 
general and indefinite to be easily repelled, but yet 
sufficiently precise to bring into discredit the con- 
duct and motives of the Executive. But whatever 
it may hare been intended to accomplish, it is obvi- 
ous that the vague, general, and abstract form of the 
resolution, is in perfect keeping with those other 
departures from first principles and settled improve- 
ments in jurisprudence, so properly the boast of 
free countries in modern times. And it is not too 
much to say of the whole of these proceedings, that 
if they shall be approved and sustained by an intelli- 
gent people, then will that great contest with ar- 
bitrary power, which bad established in statutes, in 
bills of rights, in sacred charters, and in constitutions 
•f government, the right of every citizen, to a notice 
before trial, to a hearing before conviction, and